|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 1:32:19 GMT
Indeed. But the point of Sagan (and Flew's) analogies is, still, simply that unique claims of any sort about a being qualified into existence are basically just offering excuse after excuse why the burden of proof is not discharged until falsification is effectively impossible. I hope that helps. (And I see you are still dodging the bullet when I suggest that an invisible being that can do the impossible can, well, do just that and thus be both unambiguously visible and invisible lol.) See my final words below. The actual original premise actually leads with ' if God can do anything...' Any certainty here is all yours. Look back and check. Is that something "I failed to mention" before? And, as has been pointed out to you with good logical reasons, the premise is, quite simply a false one. To accept it as valid, as it appears you do with that "my argument" above, is to misunderstand the way biblical scholars and thinkers commonly view the nature of an 'all-powerful' deity. Sorry about that. The point is, still, that to go on as one might and argue in favour of that type of god, inevitably leads to qualifying such a being into existence, as I have shown ... a process of special pleading that we are surely all over-familiar with elsewhere. In short, what you are so taken with here is a duff idea, one inevitably propped up by with logic-busting special pleading ('... so a triangle can have four sides if ever God wills it' 'God can lift rocks that He made that are unliftable' etc). I can't falsify such assertions, other with logic, which of course is rendered useless by qualifying a supreme being as one which, being special, of course can do the illogically incoherent, can't it now? I don't refuse it. I refute it- but only when, as you have done, it is taken as an absolute, rather than the conditional, statement that the original poster submitted. And even then only when normal rules of logic apply, without special pleading. It's not my premise. I am not the OP. Then why did you change it from a conditional to absolute statement and dispute around that? You seem to have been conflating the original premise with something you want it to read and the tone of your reply before last was a bit intemperate.. Remember what I said earlier about emotion and (personal) psychology playing an important part in religious matters? I do. To which (assuming you mean "can't be known by God"), the same rebuttal of logical incoherence applies. And, as we have not discussed omniscience here I am not sure why you would even want to open a second front. Perhaps if God knows everything then He knows that, despite all claims to the contrary He cannot actually do what cannot be done, which is why He does not try? This appears a sudden change from your previous claim that an omnipotent being can do literally anything, and here I fully agree with you. But here you are just contradicting what you said above. There is no reason why intrinsic possibilities (or potential) would not apply equally in the instance of a God which might be able to do such-and-such, and one who definitely can do it. In which case then, why does a God, whose will is supposedly to bring all to salvation, not fulfil his own will and do it, by doing just as you describe, something quick and easy? And what would it look like, being half on and half off? No points for special pleading.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 24, 2020 2:11:51 GMT
It's not my premise. I am not the OP. Then why did you change it from a conditional to absolute statement and dispute around that? I didn't. If you don't want snark, don't give it. As for the premise, I'm not reading anything that isn't written in the title. The premise is that God can do anything. If you see something else, it is you who are reading things that aren't there. Need I also point out that this is not a debate about the existence of God? If anything, it's a debate about omnipotence, and I just happen to agree with your esteemed colleagues at Stanford. However, surely you noticed how they said "maximally powerful," as opposed to "omnipotent." That's clever. Whether he will or won't is irrelevant to whether or not he can. (See thread title.) Unlike Rick, I did not neglect to mention that. As I said, I already explained that long before you came strutting in here with your invalid dragon analogy. I don't believe in the existence of werewolves and vampires, but I would still answer the question. But if it were you asking me - and not that it would do any good - I would be sure to include a disclaimer with every post to remind you that I do not believe in werewolves and vampires and that I'm just following the premise as stated. These are not my exceptions, nor are they the OP's. They're yours. The premise of this discussion is that God can do anything. So with all that out of the way... If God can do anything, can he make a mistake?
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 9:42:44 GMT
Then why did you change it from a conditional to absolute statement and dispute around that? I didn't. If you don't want snark, don't give it. As for the premise, I'm not reading anything that isn't written in the title. The premise is that God can do anything. If you see something else, it is you who are reading things that aren't there. Need I also point out that this is not a debate about the existence of God? If anything, it's a debate about omnipotence, and I just happen to agree with your esteemed colleagues at Stanford. However, surely you noticed how they said "maximally powerful," as opposed to "omnipotent." That's clever. Whether he will or won't is irrelevant to whether or not he can. (See thread title.) Unlike Rick, I did not neglect to mention that. As I said, I already explained that long before you came strutting in here with your invalid dragon analogy. I don't believe in the existence of werewolves and vampires, but I would still answer the question. But if it were you asking me - and not that it would do any good - I would be sure to include a disclaimer with every post to remind you that I do not believe in werewolves and vampires and that I'm just following the premise as stated. These are not my exceptions, nor are they the OP's. They're yours. The premise of this discussion is that God can do anything. So with all that out of the way... If God can do anything, can he make a mistake? The real question seems to be, “If God can do anything, can he do what I want him to do?” Why the heck should he, though? He’s not taking requests.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 10:22:34 GMT
It is not regarded as “God’s will” that everyone reach salvation.
One could say it’s an offer to mankind.
Obviously, not everyone is regarded as making it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 24, 2020 10:43:08 GMT
If God can do anything, can he make a mistake? The real question seems to be, “If God can do anything, can he do what I want him to do?” Why the heck should he, though? He’s not taking requests. That Krauss guy someone mentioned earlier is on record as saying that if anything is possible, it isn't serious science. Apparently that applies to religion as well, otherwise God would be able to do some pretty nonsensical things, and by nonsensical I don't mean things that may not make sense to us (yet or ever); I mean things that don't make sense, period. And if that's the case, then literally anything that follows "can God" is possible. He could make himself not exist without ever being nonexistent, he could slaughter with benevolence, he could both grant and deny requests with and without reason, and he could make a mistake without compromising his perfection. I'd bet he could even do things that he himself can't do. Sounds like crazy talk to me, but that's the premise. So... Since the premise is that God can do anything, then the answer to "can he..." will always be yes, even if it's "can he make a mistake." Easy peasy lemon squeezy. But, can he really? We're talking about a mistake here, and I'm not sure that a mistake is something that anyone does. I mean, what if we were to ask God this question and he says, "Of course I can. I'm God. I can do anything. It's right there in the premise for chrissake." So we ask him to prove it. What happens then? Does he intentionally and successfully make a mistake? It's a nonsense question. It's fun, but not fun enough to keep rehashing about any longer. I'm out. Thanks all for the chats.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 11:06:20 GMT
The real question seems to be directed at those that are theists and belief in this God thing.
—-///————-
Yes, the real question is about mass slandering billions and billions of innocent people.
The anti-religion religion is entirely based on such ridiculous things.
Religion has been mainstream in most of the world in all of mankind’s recorded history.
The anti-religion religion is on a useless cancel culture quest against the human race.
Obviously, the earliest cavemen must have been racist, too.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 24, 2020 11:15:08 GMT
The real question seems to be directed at those that are theists and belief in this God thing. —-///————- Yes, the real question is about mass slandering billions and billions of innocent people. The anti-religion religion is entirely based on such ridiculous things. Religion has been mainstream in most of the world in all of mankind’s recorded history. The anti-religion religion is on a useless cancel culture quest against the human race. Obviously, the earliest cavemen must have been racist, too. You know instead of just pretty much repeating the same thing over and over in different ways, why don`t you try to come up with an actual argument.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 11:23:36 GMT
The real question seems to be directed at those that are theists and belief in this God thing. —-///————- Yes, the real question is about mass slandering billions and billions of innocent people. The anti-religion religion is entirely based on such ridiculous things. Religion has been mainstream in most of the world in all of mankind’s recorded history. The anti-religion religion is on a useless cancel culture quest against the human race. Obviously, the earliest cavemen must have been racist, too. You know instead of just pretty much repeating the same thing over and over in different ways, why don`t you try to come up with an actual argument. There is nothing meaningful to say about mass slandering other than it is mass slandering.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 11:26:04 GMT
Innocent from what? Ones own delusion?
—————-
Innocent from mass slandering.
The countless billions of innocent people who merely had thoughts you don’t like are innocent and undeserving of your endless malice towards them.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 11:29:34 GMT
If slandering billions is the world to you, then have at it, I guess.
You need to care about something in your life.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 13:56:14 GMT
Then why did you change it from a conditional to absolute statement and dispute around that? I didn't.. I'm not reading anything that isn't written in the title. The premise is that God can do anything. If you see something else, it is you who are reading things that aren't there. I see the thread title ' IF god can do anything can he make a mistake'; then I see from you that "the premise is that anything can be done." which is simply not the same premise. One is conditional, one is not. You can see how it looks if you repeatedly ignore the difference.. It is the wisest course. This current exchange is made up of two issues, whether God can do everything or not and, related to that, the qualifying excuses made by those who offer us a God with certain absolute characteristics but then, inevitably, find excuses why they and it cannot ever be evidenced. (The dragon in the garage). If God can do anything let Him make himself known clearly and unambiguously, in the modern age. Why does He not? Otherwise you are just making a statement without substantiation. You say that a deity that can do absolutely everything could thus be invisible and visible at the same time, but do not say how it could be accomplished or described. Apparently it would just be so. But something which cannot happen is not a brute fact just because one can think of it, much less if it cannot be demonstrated. That distinction is made to cleverly distinguish between a God which can do absolutely everything from one who can only do the possible, which I am sure we both understand. However I am pleased that you agree with the standard thought on the matter (which is more, precisely, that a God could do anything except the strictly impossible or, also change its nature) it is just a shame that the premise you state of your own accord, above, contradicts that agreement. God can still not do what is logically incoherent (see what Stanford say) And this it, appears you agreed with. But now you don't. Then you best amend your preferred version of the premise. I also remember that your agreement with Stanford and the prevailing thought on the matter was not something you made clear earlier. Perhaps you just forgot to mention it? Instead we had things like "It's neither reasonable nor rational to impose limits on a being that is presumed to have none." Presumed by whom? As I have shown, with reasons very few who have read the literature make this presumption, why it is thus invalid, and now, it appears, you agree with them. Here you just sound intemperate again lol The analogy is perfect in showing that the notion of an all-powerful deity such as you on-off support, is just not demonstrable. You cannot even tell us what a deity which is both visible and invisible at the same time would look like. (I note that you did not answer why we do not see God in this manner, when it would inevitably bring more to Him by persuasion.) Correction: even if God can do anything He can still only do things which are logically coherent (and can't change his nature). That's the more nuanced view you now, apparently, agree with. At least sometimes. Since the question was not ever over whether you believe that God exists, rather than whether you think that, should it exist, a god could do literally anything, I think this is a non-sequitur.. But now you have told me that you agree with Stanford and I, then that question is settled. For the last time it is not, that is your premise. The thread is about IF god can do anything. To which the answer is, still, that if a god is omnipotent it still can't do the logically impossible (which means making a mistake is fine). One can think of a God that can do that, yes; but that does not make it coherent. Don't make me keep repeating the obvious. The answer is that God can make any mistake that can be made. However, as per standard Christian thought that deity at least is not going to make any. A mistake too is often just a matter of perspective. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 14:04:09 GMT
That Krauss guy someone mentioned earlier is on record as saying that if anything is possible, it isn't serious science. Science also says that, anything that can happen will happen, given enough time. As already explained to you, the common view among thinkers on the matter is that God cannot do the impossible, or change His nature. For everything else the standard excuses include that "God moves in mysterious ways" "no one knows the mind of God" or even "what ever God does is right and justifed by definition" (particularly sticky this last one, when considering mass killing and genocide.)
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 14:06:53 GMT
The real question seems to be, “If God can do anything, can he do what I want him to do?” Why the heck should he, though? He’s not taking requests. That means prayers and praise are just to assuage his vanity. And taking requests was something He certainly has done before, this unchanging God.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:16:44 GMT
The real question seems to be, “If God can do anything, can he do what I want him to do?” Why the heck should he, though? He’s not taking requests. That means prayers and praise are just to assuage his vanity. And taking requests was something He certainly has done before, this unchanging God. He wouldn’t want to take requests from those whose point is to slander billions and billions of innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 14:34:36 GMT
That means prayers and praise are just to assuage his vanity. And taking requests was something He certainly has done before, this unchanging God. He wouldn’t want to take requests from those whose point is to slander billions and billions of innocent people. Sorry to deflate you, but no one knows the mind of a purported God; He furthermore apparently works in mysterious ways, and some say that what He does in any case is by definition justified, even if to some it looks questionable.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:36:06 GMT
He wouldn’t want to take requests from those whose point is to slander billions and billions of innocent people. Sorry to deflate you, but no one knows the mind of God; He furthermore works in mysterious ways, and some say that what He does is by definition justified. Someone just hacked this guy’s account.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 14:38:09 GMT
Sorry to deflate you, but no one knows the mind of God; He furthermore works in mysterious ways, and some say that what He does is by definition justified. Someone just hacked this guy’s account. Thank you for a full rebuttal of my points. Others would just post nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:40:56 GMT
Flimflam has just proved everything I’ve ever said on the internet. Yay!
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:43:09 GMT
Merry Christmas!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 14:43:09 GMT
Flimflam has just proved everything I’ve ever said on the internet. Yay! Was this when you were 'just posting information about an interesting religion?' Or just lately when you had a direct line to the mind of God?
|
|