If God can do anything can he make a mistake?

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 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.



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?


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


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.



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.

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.

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.)


Nope. See my final words below. The actual original premise actually reads 'if God can do anything...' Any certainty here is all yours. Look back and check. And even then if something is possible that does not mean it is likely.  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- most especially 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.