The Judeo-Christian God Makes Himself Irrelevant

HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
The Judeo-Christian God Makes Himself Irrelevant

I didn't get many believers with the last inflammatory remark, so I'll up the ante. Let's say the specific Judeo-Christian capital "G" God exists. Now, let's go with the idea that He's omnipotent. Two premises that are so unlikely that the mind boggles, but stay with me. What does "omnipotent" actually mean? The simple version is "all-powerful" or "able to do anything at all at any time." Want a cheeseburger? It's already in your hand. And therein lies the problem: for an omnipotent creature, there's no time or distance between something you want and something you get. It's simultaneous. In fact, there's no time to "want" at all. You already have everything you want. The god that is omnipotent already has everything it could ever want. God has everything He could ever want. You can't disappoint Him. Sin isn't even an issue. You don't have to go to church, and you don't even have to believe, because He doesn't need you to. If you're not going, that's what He wants. If you're sinning, that's what He wants. Or is God simply not omnipotent?

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Todangst wrote an essay that

Todangst wrote an essay that touches upon this subject: "God" the Ironworker and why the freewill defense fails. Version 2.0

You might be interested in giving it a once over. Good stuff.

As for the argument as you presented it, most Christian theologists try to side-step by placing God outside the temporal universe, but this fails, as a God outside the temporal universe would be, as far as I'm aware, be unable to interact with it.


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I didn't

HisWillness wrote:

I didn't get many believers with the last inflammatory remark, so I'll up the ante. Let's say the specific Judeo-Christian capital "G" God exists. Now, let's go with the idea that He's omnipotent. Two premises that are so unlikely that the mind boggles, but stay with me. What does "omnipotent" actually mean? The simple version is "all-powerful" or "able to do anything at all at any time." Want a cheeseburger? It's already in your hand. And therein lies the problem: for an omnipotent creature, there's no time or distance between something you want and something you get. It's simultaneous. In fact, there's no time to "want" at all. You already have everything you want. The god that is omnipotent already has everything it could ever want. God has everything He could ever want. You can't disappoint Him. Sin isn't even an issue. You don't have to go to church, and you don't even have to believe, because He doesn't need you to. If you're not going, that's what He wants. If you're sinning, that's what He wants. Or is God simply not omnipotent?

 

 

The problem, here, is that you have chosen an impossible definition of "omnipotent."  What is a more reasonable definition of omnipotent, and one that allows it to be possible for it to be true is to define it as the ability to do anything that is possible.

Once defined in that way, it becomes clear that there is only one entity that is capable of omnipotence and that would be the set of All that is True in the Universe (which *I* have labeled "God&quotEye-wink.  This does not require faith, belief, or the supernatural in any measure - but, it allows all that is possible to be done to be done.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers

lifewhispers wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

I didn't get many believers with the last inflammatory remark, so I'll up the ante. Let's say the specific Judeo-Christian capital "G" God exists. Now, let's go with the idea that He's omnipotent. Two premises that are so unlikely that the mind boggles, but stay with me. What does "omnipotent" actually mean? The simple version is "all-powerful" or "able to do anything at all at any time." Want a cheeseburger? It's already in your hand. And therein lies the problem: for an omnipotent creature, there's no time or distance between something you want and something you get. It's simultaneous. In fact, there's no time to "want" at all. You already have everything you want. The god that is omnipotent already has everything it could ever want. God has everything He could ever want. You can't disappoint Him. Sin isn't even an issue. You don't have to go to church, and you don't even have to believe, because He doesn't need you to. If you're not going, that's what He wants. If you're sinning, that's what He wants. Or is God simply not omnipotent?

 

 

The problem, here, is that you have chosen an impossible definition of "omnipotent."  What is a more reasonable definition of omnipotent, and one that allows it to be possible for it to be true is to define it as the ability to do anything that is possible.

Once defined in that way, it becomes clear that there is only one entity that is capable of omnipotence and that would be the set of All that is True in the Universe (which *I* have labeled "God&quotEye-wink.  This does not require faith, belief, or the supernatural in any measure - but, it allows all that is possible to be done to be done.

So in order to define something as "all-powerful" you have to redefine it as all-powerful except for..."?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So in order

jcgadfly wrote:

So in order to define something as "all-powerful" you have to redefine it as all-powerful except for..."?

I would think that it has more to do with redefining the term "all-powerful" in a more reasonable way. Unfortunately, the new definition neglects to explain what "possible" means.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:The

lifewhispers wrote:
The problem, here, is that you have chosen an impossible definition of "omnipotent."  What is a more reasonable definition of omnipotent, and one that allows it to be possible for it to be true is to define it as the ability to do anything that is possible.

Once defined in that way, it becomes clear that there is only one entity that is capable of omnipotence and that would be the set of All that is True in the Universe (which *I* have labeled "God&quotEye-wink.  This does not require faith, belief, or the supernatural in any measure - but, it allows all that is possible to be done to be done.

Well now, I didn't think of a reasonable definition of ... waitaminit, what would a "reasonable" definition of omnipotence mean?

First of all, why does all that is true = capacity to do what is possible? That's a weird jump.

Second, if we limit the omnipotence of the Judeo-Christian God, creating the universe in seven days takes us outside the realm of the "possible" (or even remotely probable). So what was your point?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:I would

LosingStreak06 wrote:

I would think that it has more to do with redefining the term "all-powerful" in a more reasonable way.

How can something be reasonably all-powerful? I'm not sure there's a lot of wiggle room with "all" and "powerful".

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:How can

HisWillness wrote:

How can something be reasonably all-powerful? I'm not sure there's a lot of wiggle room with "all" and "powerful".

I believe that we might not be using "reasonable" in the same way. The re-defining of "all-powerful" is a necessary result of examining logical contradictions that come from defining omnipotence as being able to do "anything."

Surely you've heard of the rock dilemma?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:I

LosingStreak06 wrote:

I believe that we might not be using "reasonable" in the same way. The re-defining of "all-powerful" is a necessary result of examining logical contradictions that come from defining omnipotence as being able to do "anything."

But that's the point. You can't be reasonable in any way about omnipotence. There's no way even to approach omnipotence reasonably.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Surely you've heard of the rock dilemma?

The rock that God can make that's so heavy He can't lift it? That's cute, but it's not really all that helpful. I can imagine a banana that is so powerful that it can ice-skate on the sun. That's because my imagination is powerful, not a specific deity.

How can one interpret "omnipotent" in such a way as to make it "reasonable"? I invite any and all definitions.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

How can something be reasonably all-powerful? I'm not sure there's a lot of wiggle room with "all" and "powerful".

I believe that we might not be using "reasonable" in the same way. The re-defining of "all-powerful" is a necessary result of examining logical contradictions that come from defining omnipotence as being able to do "anything."

Surely you've heard of the rock dilemma?

But the limitation of "doing what is logically possible" contradicts the term which uses the prefix meaning "all".

The problem is that the term omnipotent itself is unreasonable.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:The rock

HisWillness wrote:

The rock that God can make that's so heavy He can't lift it? That's cute, but it's not really all that helpful.

But it is, because it requires us to examine what omnipotence is. According to the dilemma, either God isn't omnipotent because he can't lift the rock, or he isn't omnipotent because he can't make it. The dilemma details the problems with the no-limits use of the term "omnipotent." Does omnipotence still count if it is held to logical principles? Some would argue that it does.

Quote:
I can imagine a banana that is so powerful that it can ice-skate on the sun. That's because my imagination is powerful, not a specific deity.

Irrelevant.

Quote:
How can one interpret "omnipotent" in such a way as to make it "reasonable"? I invite any and all definitions.

Personally, I don't believe in an "omni-" god, so I don't have much of a use for such a definition. But to pretend that the question has not been addressed by theists, is, I'm sorry to say, rather ignorant.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

The rock that God can make that's so heavy He can't lift it? That's cute, but it's not really all that helpful.

But it is, because it requires us to examine what omnipotence is. According to the dilemma, either God isn't omnipotent because he can't lift the rock, or he isn't omnipotent because he can't make it. The dilemma details the problems with the no-limits use of the term "omnipotent." Does omnipotence still count if it is held to logical principles? Some would argue that it does.

Quote:
I can imagine a banana that is so powerful that it can ice-skate on the sun. That's because my imagination is powerful, not a specific deity.

Irrelevant.

Quote:
How can one interpret "omnipotent" in such a way as to make it "reasonable"? I invite any and all definitions.

Personally, I don't believe in an "omni-" god, so I don't have much of a use for such a definition. But to pretend that the question has not been addressed by theists, is, I'm sorry to say, rather ignorant.

It's been addressed by some theists, yes.  Do you use the Bible as (at least) a partial basis for your belief system? If so, doesn't your definition of omnipotent God sit in opposition to the Biblical one?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:But the

jcgadfly wrote:

But the limitation of "doing what is logically possible" contradicts the term which uses the prefix meaning "all".

Firstly, I don't see that it does. Does "all" necessarily include logical contradictions?

Secondly, even if it did present a contradiction, your aphorismus is still just rhetoric. It doesn't change how people perceive the nature of god. It would just require them to make up a new word to describe it.

Quote:
The problem is that the term omnipotent itself is unreasonable.

Only in the sense that you are using it. As I've said to Will, to assume that there is only one definition of "omnipotent" is an effort in willful ignorance.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It's been

jcgadfly wrote:

It's been addressed by some theists, yes.  Do you use the Bible as (at least) a partial basis for your belief system? If so, doesn't your definition of omnipotent God sit in opposition to the Biblical one?

No and not applicable, respectively.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It's been addressed by some theists, yes.  Do you use the Bible as (at least) a partial basis for your belief system? If so, doesn't your definition of omnipotent God sit in opposition to the Biblical one?

No and not applicable, respectively.

OK, then. The OP was discussing the Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible. If you don't believe in that God, why are you defending it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

But the limitation of "doing what is logically possible" contradicts the term which uses the prefix meaning "all".

Firstly, I don't see that it does. Does "all" necessarily include logical contradictions?

Secondly, even if it did present a contradiction, your aphorismus is still just rhetoric. It doesn't change how people perceive the nature of god. It would just require them to make up a new word to describe it.

Quote:
The problem is that the term omnipotent itself is unreasonable.

Only in the sense that you are using it. As I've said to Will, to assume that there is only one definition of "omnipotent" is an effort in willful ignorance.

So "all"  doesn't necessarily mean "all " if that doesn't work for the God you choose?

Interesting...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:OK, then. The

jcgadfly wrote:

OK, then. The OP was discussing the Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible. If you don't believe in that God, why are you defending it?

If you'll take a closer look, you'll see that I haven't really been defending anything.

jcgadfly wrote:

So "all"  doesn't necessarily mean "all " if that doesn't work for the God you choose?

Interesting...

More like, "all" doesn't necessarily mean "all" if it doesn't work period.

Using "omnipotent" to mean something other than the contradictory and meaningless definition of the word is merely a practise in recycling a term that would otherwise become completely useless. In the same sense that gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are both forms of "evolution." If new evidence arose and the theory had to be altered, in actuality, it would be an entirely new theory. But we would still call it "evolution," no?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:Does

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Does omnipotence still count if it is held to logical principles? Some would argue that it does.

Help me out with a definition of omnipotent that allows for the Judeo-Christian God to be omnipotent like He is claimed to Be in the Bible.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Personally, I don't believe in an "omni-" god, so I don't have much of a use for such a definition.

A new twist! Describe your semi-potent supernatural creature so that I can better understand your position.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
But to pretend that the question has not been addressed by theists, is, I'm sorry to say, rather ignorant.

To pretend like the question has been addressed by theists adequately isn't.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

OK, then. The OP was discussing the Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible. If you don't believe in that God, why are you defending it?

If you'll take a closer look, you'll see that I haven't really been defending anything.

jcgadfly wrote:

So "all"  doesn't necessarily mean "all " if that doesn't work for the God you choose?

Interesting...

More like, "all" doesn't necessarily mean "all" if it doesn't work period.

Using "omnipotent" to mean something other than the contradictory and meaningless definition of the word is merely a practise in recycling a term that would otherwise become completely useless. In the same sense that gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are both forms of "evolution." If new evidence arose and the theory had to be altered, in actuality, it would be an entirely new theory. But we would still call it "evolution," no?

If I've misread you, I apologize.

It seemed like you were trying to say the Judeo-Christian God could be omnipotent if we change the definition of omnipotence to something reasonable.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Help me

HisWillness wrote:

Help me out with a definition of omnipotent that allows for the Judeo-Christian God to be omnipotent like He is claimed to Be in the Bible.

There are many. For starters, I'd advise you to read the wikipedia article concerning the definition of omnipotence. It gives a fairly accurate, albeit concise, discussion of how theists have dealt with the question of omnipotence.

HisWillness wrote:

A new twist! Describe your semi-potent supernatural creature so that I can better understand your position.

The object of my worship is a particular fruit smoothie.

HissWillness wrote:

To pretend like the question has been addressed by theists adequately isn't.

If you would like to expound upon what you believe to be the inadequacies of the various theistic interpretations of omnipotence, then please feel free to.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If I've

jcgadfly wrote:

If I've misread you, I apologize.

It seemed like you were trying to say the Judeo-Christian God could be omnipotent if we change the definition of omnipotence to something reasonable.

No, I was saying that Judeo-Christians are not logically out of line claiming that their God is omnipotent if they are using a non-literal definition of the word.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:As I've

LosingStreak06 wrote:
As I've said to Will, to assume that there is only one definition of "omnipotent" is an effort in willful ignorance.

"Willful ignorance" - that was awesome. Tell me you did that on purpose.

Okay, should we move beyond omnipotence to some claimed supernatural abilities in Genesis? How about the supernatural ability to create light and matter coupled with the ability to compress time? Those abilities alone would allow ... well pretty much everything. To tell you the truth, I don't know how that's not omnipotent. Even if it's "almost omnipotent", like say maybe no turning time backwards or something, He's still getting whatever He wants All The Time.

All I'm saying is that I'm not the one being unreasonable here.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Don't forget, that god is

Don't forget, that god is also omni-impotent. 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:The

LosingStreak06 wrote:
The object of my worship is a particular fruit smoothie.

That makes you the greatest theist in the world. Not even kidding. Do you have a recipe for this smoothie, or is it beyond the ken of man?

LosingStreak06 wrote:
If you would like to expound upon what you believe to be the inadequacies of the various theistic interpretations of omnipotence, then please feel free to.

Do you know any that aren't completely ridiculous? I haven't been able to find one.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Okay,

HisWillness wrote:
Okay, should we move beyond omnipotence to some claimed supernatural abilities in Genesis? How about the supernatural ability to create light and matter coupled with the ability to compress time? Those abilities alone would allow ... well pretty much everything. To tell you the truth, I don't know how that's not omnipotent. Even if it's "almost omnipotent", like say maybe no turning time backwards or something, He's still getting whatever He wants All The Time.

I'm not seeing the problem.

HisWillness wrote:
That makes you the greatest theist in the world. Not even kidding. Do you have a recipe for this smoothie, or is it beyond the ken of man?

It's called the "3-Berry Blast" and you can get it at Orange Julius.

HisWillness wrote:
Do you know any that aren't completely ridiculous? I haven't been able to find one.

I apologize. You may have misunderstood me. I was asking for you to kindly explain what you feel the logical shortcomings of some of the various definitions of omnipotence are. Snide retorts are not at all necessary.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 First of all, I'm sorry to

 First of all, I'm sorry to come off "snide". It certainly wasn't my intent - this kind of discussion or debate is strictly fun for me, so maybe I'm not writing well enough to convey that.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
It's called the "3-Berry Blast" and you can get it at Orange Julius.

That, right there, is the reason I love this conversation. At least you picked something good to worship.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
You may have misunderstood me. I was asking for you to kindly explain what you feel the logical shortcomings of some of the various definitions of omnipotence are.

I did misunderstand you, so I see how you thought my comments smacked of contempt. No such snarkiness meant. Let's hit the definitions, with your suggestion of Wikipedia as the source:

1. God is able to do anything (as noted, this is a theological quagmire, and is often immediately abandoned).

2. God is able to do anything that is logically possible for God to do. That's circular. I think even Aquinas said that's circular.

3. God is able to do anything God chooses to do (or whithin the nature of God). Pretty much of the same as #2, really. What situation would warrant the necessity of choice for a being that can manipulate time, matter, and energy? Like "want", there is no distance or time between desire and action for a creature with supernatural dominion over the universe.

The fifth suggestion on Wikipedia is the least helpful. The first part is that God is consistent. God is not consistent in word, evidenced by His Bible. So we can strike that one.

Even the impossible isn't really a problem for a master manipulator of the universe. That manipulator could conceivably come up with a different universe wherein a shapeless cube is possible. But my point is that He would already have that universe if He wanted. Instead, we're in this one, where He has exactly what He wants.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
From the Thomistic point of

From the Thomistic point of view, omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible.  "Intrinsically impossible" would include any actions that:

    a.  would be out of harmony with the nature of God and his attributes (ie, sin) since this would conflict with his perfection.

    b.  would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements (ie, a square circle, rock he couldn't lift).  These self-contradictory terms could only result in nothingness.

Aquinas sums it up by saying, "Hence, it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it."

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:From the

totus_tuus wrote:

From the Thomistic point of view, omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible.  "Intrinsically impossible" would include any actions that:

    a.  would be out of harmony with the nature of God and his attributes (ie, sin) since this would conflict with his perfection.

    b.  would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements (ie, a square circle, rock he couldn't lift).  These self-contradictory terms could only result in nothingness.

Aquinas sums it up by saying, "Hence, it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it."

 

Doesn't that view completely eliminate miracles and resurrections?

Or the verses where Jesus claims, "...with God all things are possible"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:From the

totus_tuus wrote:

From the Thomistic point of view, omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible.

...

Aquinas sums it up by saying, "Hence, it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it."

You must realize that "intrinsically impossible" is a restatement of the above "God can do whatever God can do." It's just saying "God cannot do what God cannot do." That's still circular.

Furthermore, the most lucid, entertaining and challenging theistic argument is still coming from someone who worships a smoothie. Sorry, Smoothie. 

It is therefore my contention that Its Grace The High Holy 3-Berry Blast of Orange Julius is intrinsically superior to the Judeo-Christian God, as at least discussion of Its Awesome Greatness can be inferred through the existence of other, extant smoothies.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:As for

LosingStreak06 wrote:

As for the argument as you presented it, most Christian theologists try to side-step by placing God outside the temporal universe, but this fails, as a God outside the temporal universe would be, as far as I'm aware, be unable to interact with it.

Ah, but an omnipotent being that exists outside of time (however that might be possible), wouldn't need to interact with the universe, as time would be just another dimension to the canvas, as length and width are to us. Thus, all the changes that are perceived as we, within the work, progress through the temporal direction, were created at the same point in whatever axis of progression 'God' travels along as everything else.

In other words, if we shift this to a 3-dimensional analogy for 4-dimensional space-time...

God has no need to interact, because all of time was created simultaneously. We're just limited to perceiving it in finite amounts.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:God has no need

BMcD wrote:

God has no need to interact, because all of time was created simultaneously. We're just limited to perceiving it in finite amounts.

Like eating a loaf of bread one slice at a time.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:Like

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Like eating a loaf of bread one slice at a time.

Maybe like being alive and then, later, dead? That's a discrete period of time.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Maybe like

HisWillness wrote:

Maybe like being alive and then, later, dead? That's a discrete period of time.

If we look at the universe as a four dimensional... thing... then each atomic particle would exist as a strand traveling along the temporal axis. "Alive" is just a term we give to the temporary interactions between a relatively small number of those strands. It's a small blip on the tapestry that is the universe.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:If we

LosingStreak06 wrote:

If we look at the universe as a four dimensional... thing... then each atomic particle would exist as a strand traveling along the temporal axis. "Alive" is just a term we give to the temporary interactions between a relatively small number of those strands. It's a small blip on the tapestry that is the universe.

Okay, but we're still limited to experiencing life in finite amounts, which was the point you were mutating with the "one slice of bread at a time" thing. Obviously, you can eat more than one slice of bread at a time. You cannot, to the best of my knowledge, live two lives at the same time.

Or is this a promise of The One True 3-Berry Blast? Not making fun of you. Yours is still the greatest deity I've ever even heard of.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

LosingStreak06 wrote:

If we look at the universe as a four dimensional... thing... then each atomic particle would exist as a strand traveling along the temporal axis. "Alive" is just a term we give to the temporary interactions between a relatively small number of those strands. It's a small blip on the tapestry that is the universe.

Okay, but we're still limited to experiencing life in finite amounts, which was the point you were mutating with the "one slice of bread at a time" thing. Obviously, you can eat more than one slice of bread at a time. You cannot, to the best of my knowledge, live two lives at the same time.

Suppose that the slice of bread in the analogy is a moment in your life. The loaf is your life as a whole. Obviously the analogy isn't perfect, because we don't experience time in slices, but the general idea is the same. In a side note, "we" is rather a confusing term. What is "we"? A collective of separate consciousnesses? "We" are, as far as I can tell, nothing but knots in the fabric that makes up existence.

Quote:
Or is this a promise of The One True 3-Berry Blast? Not making fun of you. Yours is still the greatest deity I've ever even heard of.

This isn't surprising, considering the resumes of the other deities I have examined in my time as a knot in the strands of atomic matter. The Divine Smoothie, however, being a Smoothie, is unable to make promises (as it cannot speak).