Comments on Todangst article "God the Ironworker"

OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Comments on Todangst article "God the Ironworker"

Todangst wrote in "God the Ironworker"
"It therefore follows that 'god' cannot be all powerful/all knowing AND the creator of the universe AND create beings with free will AND then find them guilty for their behaviors, because such a god must also be perfectly responsible for every single solitary aspect of existence that determines their guilt, in the first place. An omnipotent, omniscient iron worker is perfectly responsible for his metal, just as a omnipotent, omniscient creator is perfectly responsible for his creation."

The article is a standard boiler plate recap of the "paradox" arguments against God. The short and correct answer is you can not make claims of a paradox unless you have complete understanding of the system in which you claim the paradox to have occurred. You don't. You can not deduce divine omnipotence is paradoxical unless you have the proper set of axioms to start with. You don't.
 


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote:EDIT: Removed

triften wrote:

EDIT: Removed reply because it is obvious that Clay wants to eat his cake and have it too.

He wants to argue for his god, but no one else can; assert things are true, then blow off everyone else; debate god, but hold his claims true on faith.

I agree, it was over before it started. I kind of wonder why he bothered to post at all.

-Triften

Exacly, that's what I was trying to get at:
me wrote:
Without a god, or even a consistent definition of god, we only have what theists make up to work with.  So when we're fed a load of crap about an inconsistent god and told he's not inconsistent, we just don't understand it because theists haven't thought through what they make believe, we can hardly argue against that logically now can we?

 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:Clay, do

spike.barnett wrote:

Clay, do you suffer from some sort of complex? You're always talking down to everyone, saying they are inept or ill equipped for debate.

You seem to have an asymmetric sensitivity.


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

OrdinaryClay wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:

Clay, do you suffer from some sort of complex? You're always talking down to everyone, saying they are inept or ill equipped for debate.

You seem to have an asymmetric sensitivity.

Or you're projecting...

"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


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

This is absurd. I can describe the front of a building without knowing what the back looks like.

And if your description of the front contains logical inconsistencies or is so vague as to allow no analysis, it doesn't matter what the back looks like. If your definition of the goodness of your god is insufficient to determine whether a particular action of his would be good, then your definition is useless.

Good. You agree that descriptions can be made with some knowledge. So now it just falls to determine the limitations resulting from limited knowledge. Give me an example of where we can not make a determination? I did. Your turn.

 

Quote:

Quote:

We just did - omnipotence and just. Stop stalling.

Wonderful, you can repeat words. Now define them. Tell me what an omnipotent being can do, and can't. Tell me what an omnibenevolent being will do, and won't. Tell me what an omniscient being can know, and can't. Follow that up with definitions for sin, redemption, heaven, hell and the rest of your theology. If you can do so without resorting to an appeal to ignorance or mystery, then we'll debate. If you can't define the terms you think are worth embracing a religion for, then your beliefs are too vapid to bother with.

It would be a trivial effort to google up scores of atheists all clamoring that they have concise examples of paradox based on the omni qualities(which are self explanatory). They all also would clamor loudly that they have found the one ... yet you fiddle about. Either you agree with me or you still stall.

 

Quote:

Quote:

I just demonstrated this was not true.

You've demonstrated little more than your ability to be obtuse so far.

You just acknowledged that incomplete knowledge limits our ability to reason. I pointed this out in the case of Todangst article. Either you are agreeing with me or you think Todangst article is arguing based on adequate knowledge. Which is it?
 


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

OrdinaryClay wrote:

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

This is absurd. I can describe the front of a building without knowing what the back looks like.

And if your description of the front contains logical inconsistencies or is so vague as to allow no analysis, it doesn't matter what the back looks like. If your definition of the goodness of your god is insufficient to determine whether a particular action of his would be good, then your definition is useless.

Good. You agree that descriptions can be made with some knowledge. So now it just falls to determine the limitations resulting from limited knowledge. Give me an example of where we can not make a determination? I did. Your turn.

 

Quote:

Quote:

We just did - omnipotence and just. Stop stalling.

Wonderful, you can repeat words. Now define them. Tell me what an omnipotent being can do, and can't. Tell me what an omnibenevolent being will do, and won't. Tell me what an omniscient being can know, and can't. Follow that up with definitions for sin, redemption, heaven, hell and the rest of your theology. If you can do so without resorting to an appeal to ignorance or mystery, then we'll debate. If you can't define the terms you think are worth embracing a religion for, then your beliefs are too vapid to bother with.

It would be a trivial effort to google up scores of atheists all clamoring that they have concise examples of paradox based on the omni qualities(which are self explanatory). They all also would clamor loudly that they have found the one ... yet you fiddle about. Either you agree with me or you still stall.

 

Quote:

Quote:

I just demonstrated this was not true.

You've demonstrated little more than your ability to be obtuse so far.

You just acknowledged that incomplete knowledge limits our ability to reason. I pointed this out in the case of Todangst article. Either you are agreeing with me or you think Todangst article is arguing based on adequate knowledge. Which is it?
 

So your God expects us to swear unquestioning obedience to him on limited knowledge? With his track record? No chance.  I'd ask if you knew his track record but that might mean you'd have to read the Bible.

You are trying to make the case for God based on your limited knowledge - why is a case against God invalid for the same reasons your case is sound?

"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


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

I believe based on faith. I did not deduce his omnipotence. This has been said many, many, many times.

And you demonstrate amply why this is a foolish method for understanding reality.

So you agree deducing a paradox in the case of the omni qualities is foolish.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

I have never been in an atheist debate without the atheist resorting to personal attacks. And who said atheist beliefs do not result in predictable behaviors.

Indeed. When someone presumes that their particular brand of irrational nonsense should be swallowed without proof, I am forced to wonder at their mental state.

In this thread, I've been asserting that concluding a paradox from the omni attributes is nonsense. Nothing more.

 

Quote:

You are either naive, stupid or arrogant in presuming that your religion somehow doesn't require proof, and you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it.

Atheists believe with out proof as well.

Surprised? Hardly. That is why I made the statement. You seem to consistently underestimate what is understood. This seems to be common with internet atheists.


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

OrdinaryClay wrote:

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

I believe based on faith. I did not deduce his omnipotence. This has been said many, many, many times.

And you demonstrate amply why this is a foolish method for understanding reality.

So you agree deducing a paradox in the case of the omni qualities is foolish.

Do you agree deducing the existence of a God on a fervent belief that he has those qualities is foolish?

If so, please stop doing 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
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

I have never been in an atheist debate without the atheist resorting to personal attacks. And who said atheist beliefs do not result in predictable behaviors.

Indeed. When someone presumes that their particular brand of irrational nonsense should be swallowed without proof, I am forced to wonder at their mental state.

In this thread, I've been asserting that concluding a paradox from the omni attributes is nonsense. Nothing more.

 

Quote:

You are either naive, stupid or arrogant in presuming that your religion somehow doesn't require proof, and you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it.

Atheists believe with out proof as well.

Surprised? Hardly. That is why I made the statement. You seem to consistently underestimate what is understood. This seems to be common with internet atheists.

Yep, you're projecting.

"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


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

You are being vague now. What leap of faith do you refer to?

Are you not a Christian? Did you not just refer to your acceptance on FAITH of your god's omnipotence? Did you not just claim that you know for a fact that there are no exceptions to your god's omnipotence or omniscience? Do you even read what you type?

Well if you notice the subject of the thread was why the omni paradoxes are invalid. So your reference could have been on subject. I was not sure.


Oh, yes, I'm a Christian. In this context your comment is non-sensical. You said I had "insufficient knowledge to make a leap of faith". Faith does not require evidence. You can see why I was surprised by your strange proclamation.
 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
"It therefore follows that 'god' cannot be all powerful/all knowing AND the creator of the universe AND create beings with free will AND then find them guilty for their behaviors, because such a god must also be perfectly responsible for every single solitary aspect of existence that determines their guilt, in the first place."

...I can't find the word 'paradox' in here. Is this like one of those Where's Waldo puzzles?

 

I've never been very good at those.

Ok. You don't need the word "paradox" in a sentence to establish it as a paradox.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

I believe based on faith. I did not deduce his omnipotence. This has been said many, many, many times.

Well, then I am simply at a loss as to why you are even debating with us. By professing faith, you're admitting that you are incapable of establishing the credibility of your claims, so this discussion is over before it even began.

If you read the first post you will see that my claim is that omni paradox claims are baseless. If you believe mine is baseless then you believe these are.

 

Quote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:
...I can't find the word 'paradox' in here. Is this like one of those Where's Waldo puzzles?

Lol, look harder. It's like the puzzle on the last page, where everybody looks like Waldo and the only way to determine the real Waldo is by observing that he has one extra red stripe on his shirt or something.

You are mis quoting me. I never made that statment. Reread the post you quoted from.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote:EDIT: Removed

triften wrote:

EDIT: Removed reply because it is obvious that Clay wants to eat his cake and have it too.

He wants to argue for his god, but no one else can; assert things are true, then blow off everyone else; debate god, but hold his claims true on faith.

I agree, it was over before it started. I kind of wonder why he bothered to post at all.

-Triften

You seem to have fallen for the group think in this thread that I'm arguing for the truth of God. I was not. Reread and you should see what I was actually arguing.


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't see Todangst

I don't see Todangst rehashing a paradox.  I do see him saying an omnipotent/omniscient/etc god is completely responsible for anything and everything he creates.  Including for what those creations do.  Would you agree with that?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:triften

OrdinaryClay wrote:

triften wrote:

EDIT: Removed reply because it is obvious that Clay wants to eat his cake and have it too.

He wants to argue for his god, but no one else can; assert things are true, then blow off everyone else; debate god, but hold his claims true on faith.

I agree, it was over before it started. I kind of wonder why he bothered to post at all.

-Triften

You seem to have fallen for the group think in this thread that I'm arguing for the truth of God. I was not. Reread and you should see what I was actually arguing.

You're claiming that one can't dispute the omni-attributes unless one has them. It's an attempt to keep your God from scrutiny. It failed miserably.

If you worship an omnimax god, why does he need you to leap to his defense?

"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


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote: Good.

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Good. You agree that descriptions can be made with some knowledge. So now it just falls to determine the limitations resulting from limited knowledge. Give me an example of where we can not make a determination? I did. Your turn.

You made an explicit claim about this, did you not?

OrdinaryClay wrote:

You can not deduce divine omnipotence is paradoxical unless you have the proper set of axioms to start with. You don't.

You, as a Christian, are presenting your conception of your god, complete with a set of properties which you believe that god has or embodies. If you define your god in the standard Christian method(omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc), then you are making particular claims about your god's nature, about what he can and will do. You either have defined the properties precisely enough to be able to make logical deductions, or you haven't. If you have, then a paradox can certainly be deduced. If not, then your terms are too vague to work with, and your arguments are built on nothing. If the axioms derived from your theology are incomplete, then making definitive claims based on them is a joke.

Quote:

It would be a trivial effort to google up scores of atheists all clamoring that they have concise examples of paradox based on the omni qualities(which are self explanatory). They all also would clamor loudly that they have found the one ... yet you fiddle about. Either you agree with me or you still stall.

It is you who waffle. I don't even care about the original argument you pointed out(the snippet you posted is, in fact, not conclusive simply from the fact that it doesn't exclude a malevolent deity). What I am saying is that you can either define the qualities of your god precisely enough to make definitive logical statements about him, or you render yourself unable to make definitive statements about him at all. And you make definitive statements all the time.

And if you think that the qualities associated with your deity are uniform for all Christian believers, then you are also displaying an amazing lack of knowledge.

Quote:

You just acknowledged that incomplete knowledge limits our ability to reason. I pointed this out in the case of Todangst article. Either you are agreeing with me or you think Todangst article is arguing based on adequate knowledge. Which is it?

Are you having trouble following the English? I'm saying that you can't have it both ways. Either there is sufficient information, and you can make claims about your god that can be analyzed, or there is insufficient information, and your claims are as limited and conditional as the argument you are attempting to refute.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:So you

OrdinaryClay wrote:

So you agree deducing a paradox in the case of the omni qualities is foolish.

Making any claim at all based on faith and axioms which you claim are incomplete is quite foolish. If your god's qualities are defined enough to make belief tenable, then they are likewise complete enough to deduce a paradox.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:In this

OrdinaryClay wrote:

In this thread, I've been asserting that concluding a paradox from the omni attributes is nonsense. Nothing more.\

No, you assert that the paradox is impossible to define because the axioms are incomplete. And yet you base your faith and your statements about your beliefs squarely on the properties you claim are so ill-defined.

 

Quote:

Atheists believe with out proof as well.

I would think that you would have grasped this concept by now. Atheism is a lack of belief. I lack a belief in your god, just as I lack a belief in Zeus and Thor, and I lack a belief in a monster living in the closet. I know that this is in contrast to your "believe first, find evidence in hindsight" method, but that's how rational people do it.

 

Quote:

Surprised? Hardly. That is why I made the statement. You seem to consistently underestimate what is understood. This seems to be common with internet atheists.

I disagree. I think I have consistently overestimated your ability to understand logic. Heck, I presented our argument to two people(an agnostic and an Evangelical Christian) this morning, and they both grasped the point and came to the conclusion that your argument is bunk in just a few minutes. And the majority of that time was spent reading it.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:I don't see

Balkoth wrote:

I don't see Todangst rehashing a paradox.  I do see him saying an omnipotent/omniscient/etc god is completely responsible for anything and everything he creates.  Including for what those creations do.  Would you agree with that?

Just spit out the alleged paradox for goodness sake, and I'll respond. 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:You made

thatonedude wrote:

You made an explicit claim about this, did you not?

I was looking for yours.

 

thatonedude wrote:

You, as a Christian, are presenting your conception of your god, complete with a set of properties which you believe that god has or embodies. If you define your god in the standard Christian method(omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc), then you are making particular claims about your god's nature, about what he can and will do. You either have defined the properties precisely enough to be able to make logical deductions, or you haven't. If you have, then a paradox can certainly be deduced. If not, then your terms are too vague to work with, and your arguments are built on nothing. If the axioms derived from your theology are incomplete, then making definitive claims based on them is a joke.

You know as well as I do that Christianity is defined. This is why a gaggle of atheists claim paradoxes. Either you believe these atheist paradoxes are wrong or the claims of Christianity used to build them are correct. Which is it?

 

thatonedude wrote:

It is you who waffle. I don't even care about the original argument you pointed out(the snippet you posted is, in fact, not conclusive simply from the fact that it doesn't exclude a malevolent deity). What I am saying is that you can either define the qualities of your god precisely enough to make definitive logical statements about him, or you render yourself unable to make definitive statements about him at all. And you make definitive statements all the time.

You confuse thoroughness with waffling. Just because you don't care about the subject of the post does not mean that your reasoning can not be used to clarify it.

 

thatonedude wrote:

Are you having trouble following the English? I'm saying that you can't have it both ways. Either there is sufficient information, and you can make claims about your god that can be analyzed, or there is insufficient information, and your claims are as limited and conditional as the argument you are attempting to refute.

I think you may be confused. I'm not talking about my claims about God. I'm asking if you are in agreement, based on your own reasoning, that omni paradoxes are invalid.

 

 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

So you agree deducing a paradox in the case of the omni qualities is foolish.

Making any claim at all based on faith and axioms which you claim are incomplete is quite foolish. If your god's qualities are defined enough to make belief tenable, then they are likewise complete enough to deduce a paradox.

No, you misunderstand deduction. Claiming to use deduction when one can not is less sound logically then holding a belief based on faith. You may not believe either case, but the former is certainly less sound logically.
 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:You are

OrdinaryClay wrote:

You are mis quoting me. I never made that statment. Reread the post you quoted from.

Dang, it looks like I typed your username when I was quoting Kevin. My apologies.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

In this thread, I've been asserting that concluding a paradox from the omni attributes is nonsense. Nothing more.\

No, you assert that the paradox is impossible to define because the axioms are incomplete. And yet you base your faith and your statements about your beliefs squarely on the properties you claim are so ill-defined.

What my faith is does not have any bearing on whether some third party has an invalid argument. Their argument either stands or it doesn't.

 


 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

You are mis quoting me. I never made that statment. Reread the post you quoted from.

Dang, it looks like I typed your username when I was quoting Kevin. My apologies.

No problem. The response scripts used in this forum software has some issues, too.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Well if

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Well if you notice the subject of the thread was why the omni paradoxes are invalid. So your reference could have been on subject. I was not sure.


Oh, yes, I'm a Christian. In this context your comment is non-sensical. You said I had "insufficient knowledge to make a leap of faith". Faith does not require evidence. You can see why I was surprised by your strange proclamation.

You are correct that faith does not require evidence. That is the reason why irrational people like yourself embrace all sorts of odd beliefs, from Christianity and Scientology to astrology and psychic powers. Your credulity is astounding. As I said, rational people start from evidence.

Of course, since you have stated before that you and your family have been Christians most of your life, I would wager that you accepted Christianity on authority, not on the blind faith you seem to advocate.

 

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:I was

OrdinaryClay wrote:

I was looking for yours.

OK, I will type it again, for the reading impaired: you can't claim that your axioms are sufficient to support your claims and yet are too vague to determine the possibility of a paradox.

 

Quote:

You know as well as I do that Christianity is defined. This is why a gaggle of atheists claim paradoxes. Either you believe these atheist paradoxes are wrong or the claims of Christianity used to build them are correct. Which is it?

I am well aware of a lot of definitions of Christian theology. And any claim to a paradox that rests upon them has exactly the same logical basis as the religious claims arising from them. If your definition of Christianity is sufficient to make a definitive claim about your god, then it also is sufficient to utilize in debunking your beliefs.

 

Quote:

You confuse thoroughness with waffling. Just because you don't care about the subject of the post does not mean that your reasoning can not be used to clarify it.

Thoroughness? Surely you jest. Your whole thesis is an appeal to ignorance.

Quote:

I think you may be confused. I'm not talking about my claims about God. I'm asking if you are in agreement, based on your own reasoning, that omni paradoxes are invalid.

They are exactly as valid as the religious arguments drawn from the same axioms.

 

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:No, you

OrdinaryClay wrote:

No, you misunderstand deduction. Claiming to use deduction when one can not is less sound logically then holding a belief based on faith. You may not believe either case, but the former is certainly less sound logically.
 

No, you misunderstand basic logic(and reality, for that matter). Believing based on faith has no logical basis. The moment you make a series of fact claims, they are exposed to logical attack.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:What my

OrdinaryClay wrote:

What my faith is does not have any bearing on whether some third party has an invalid argument. Their argument either stands or it doesn't.

 

Really? So, where exactly are you getting the information that this third party does not "have complete understanding of the system in which you claim the paradox to have occurred?" You claim that they do not have this understanding, and they can't make a logical determination based on this incompleteness. How do you know that they lack this understanding? Is it based on something inherent in the argument, or is it based on your particular brand of faith? It is precisely at the point that you interject your claims that your faith impacts this argument.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Balkoth

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Balkoth wrote:

I don't see Todangst rehashing a paradox.  I do see him saying an omnipotent/omniscient/etc god is completely responsible for anything and everything he creates.  Including for what those creations do.  Would you agree with that?

Just spit out the alleged paradox for goodness sake, and I'll respond. 

You mean you've been arguing all this time without knowing what you're arguing about?

"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


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You mean

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean you've been arguing all this time without knowing what you're arguing about?

Wasn't that evident in the first post?

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Well if you notice the subject of the thread was why the omni paradoxes are invalid. So your reference could have been on subject. I was not sure.


Oh, yes, I'm a Christian. In this context your comment is non-sensical. You said I had "insufficient knowledge to make a leap of faith". Faith does not require evidence. You can see why I was surprised by your strange proclamation.

You are correct that faith does not require evidence. That is the reason why irrational people like yourself embrace all sorts of odd beliefs, from Christianity and Scientology to astrology and psychic powers. Your credulity is astounding. As I said, rational people start from evidence.

Ok. So I'm correct in noticing that you used a non-sensical statement while you were attacking me for being irrational.

 

Quote:

Of course, since you have stated before that you and your family have been Christians most of your life, I would wager that you accepted Christianity on authority, not on the blind faith you seem to advocate.

No, I have never struggled with the notion of faith. I've always seen the natural join between faith and science. I was 16 when I accepted Christ. It was definitely a conscious choice. I was pretty much a loner as a kid - kind of preoccupied with science.  Neither parents were religious. I'm an old man now with a decrepit mind. Any illusion of reason I may exhibit is evidence of the miraculous.
 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:OK, I will

thatonedude wrote:

OK, I will type it again, for the reading impaired: you can't claim that your axioms are sufficient to support your claims and yet are too vague to determine the possibility of a paradox.

Oh, I understand your position, and that is why I'm able to go one step further then you and point out that your reasoning then forces you to reject any and all omni paradox arguments.

 

Quote:

I am well aware of a lot of definitions of Christian theology. And any claim to a paradox that rests upon them has exactly the same logical basis as the religious claims arising from them. If your definition of Christianity is sufficient to make a definitive claim about your god, then it also is sufficient to utilize in debunking your beliefs.

So using your reasoning all omni paradoxes are bogus.
 

Quote:

Quote:

I think you may be confused. I'm not talking about my claims about God. I'm asking if you are in agreement, based on your own reasoning, that omni paradoxes are invalid.

They are exactly as valid as the religious arguments drawn from the same axioms.

Well, thank you! See, I'm not the only one on this board that thinks omni paradox arguments are bogus.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

No, you misunderstand deduction. Claiming to use deduction when one can not is less sound logically then holding a belief based on faith. You may not believe either case, but the former is certainly less sound logically.

No, you misunderstand basic logic(and reality, for that matter). Believing based on faith has no logical basis. The moment you make a series of fact claims, they are exposed to logical attack.

Your confusion seems to stem from your lack of understanding of mathematical constructs. If you claim to use a construct(such as logic) and then do so errantly, such as making logical claims of a paradox when you are structurally incapable of doing so, this is a more sever logic error then believing outside of a mathematical construct.
 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

What my faith is does not have any bearing on whether some third party has an invalid argument. Their argument either stands or it doesn't.

 

Really? So, where exactly are you getting the information that this third party does not "have complete understanding of the system in which you claim the paradox to have occurred?" You claim that they do not have this understanding, and they can't make a logical determination based on this incompleteness. How do you know that they lack this understanding? 

We've went over this multiple times. You have been arguing vehemently that they do not have adequate information to make their argument. You are already obviously convinced of this.


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

thatonedude wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean you've been arguing all this time without knowing what you're arguing about?

Wasn't that evident in the first post?

Not really. You've been arguing that the paradox doesn't exist, not that you didn't see it.

Free will and omniscience can't exist together. Either the omniscient being knows what you will do before you do it or he's not an omniscient being.

Christianity tries to have both and can't see the problem.

 

 

"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


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:OrdinaryClay

jcgadfly wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:

Clay, do you suffer from some sort of complex? You're always talking down to everyone, saying they are inept or ill equipped for debate.

You seem to have an asymmetric sensitivity.

Or you're projecting...

Oops. Confused him with paisley. My bad.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:

Clay, do you suffer from some sort of complex? You're always talking down to everyone, saying they are inept or ill equipped for debate.

You seem to have an asymmetric sensitivity.

Disregard that. I was thinking of paisley when I wrote it. I don't know how, but I got you guys mixed up. As far stupidity and douche bagginess, you're not even in the same league as paisley.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Apologies to spike and OC

Apologies to spike and OC


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Apologies to

jcgadfly wrote:

Apologies to spike and OC

Likewise. I honestly don't know how I mixed you up with him OC. I apologize.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Ok. So

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Ok. So I'm correct in noticing that you used a non-sensical statement while you were attacking me for being irrational.

Not at all. I'm contrasting your method of understanding reality with the rational method of doing so. I don't think that accepting something on faith is actually a valid reason for believing anything in a definitive sense.

Quote:

No, I have never struggled with the notion of faith. I've always seen the natural join between faith and science. I was 16 when I accepted Christ. It was definitely a conscious choice. I was pretty much a loner as a kid - kind of preoccupied with science.  Neither parents were religious. I'm an old man now with a decrepit mind. Any illusion of reason I may exhibit is evidence of the miraculous.

There is no such join. Science is a method for discovering empirical truth. Faith is a method of adopting beliefs without recourse to evidence(at least, in your definition; some Christians believe that faith is predicated on a certain level of evidence). The very fact that faith leads to an large array of contradictory conclusions shows that it is not reliable at all. If you are actually preoccupied with science, then you have surely noticed that faith is useless for discovering empirical truths.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Oh, I

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Oh, I understand your position, and that is why I'm able to go one step further then you and point out that your reasoning then forces you to reject any and all omni paradox arguments.

Not at all. They are valid in any framework which claims to make definitive statements about your god.

Quote:

So using your reasoning all omni paradoxes are bogus.

Not at all. They are valid in virtually every version of Christian theology that I am aware of.
 

Quote:

Well, thank you! See, I'm not the only one on this board that thinks omni paradox arguments are bogus.

You keep claiming that I agree with you. I do not.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Your

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Your confusion seems to stem from your lack of understanding of mathematical constructs. If you claim to use a construct(such as logic) and then do so errantly, such as making logical claims of a paradox when you are structurally incapable of doing so, this is a more sever logic error then believing outside of a mathematical construct. 

Any truth claim can be evaluated logically. Asserting a statement as true and then claiming it cannot be evaluated logically is nonsense.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:We've

OrdinaryClay wrote:

We've went over this multiple times. You have been arguing vehemently that they do not have adequate information to make their argument. You are already obviously convinced of this.

This makes me wonder if you are capable of reading. I have never argued that the original statement lacks adequate information, though I did note that it is not a conclusive argument, given that a malevolent deity could embody all of those properties. You have asserted groundlessly that the original argument was based on incomplete axioms. I have pointed out that any framework in which you can make a definitive statement is to that extent subject to logical analysis. Even your denial that the original argument is complete is a definitive statement, aside from considering the fact that you obviously believe in a series of definitive statements, since you keep making definitive claims. You have no grounds on rejecting the analysis aside from your own preconceived beliefs.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Not really.

jcgadfly wrote:

Not really. You've been arguing that the paradox doesn't exist, not that you didn't see it.

Free will and omniscience can't exist together. Either the omniscient being knows what you will do before you do it or he's not an omniscient being.

Christianity tries to have both and can't see the problem.

What? I have never argued that. Are you mistaking me for OC?

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
There was a mixup with the

There was a mixup with the quote tags.

Moving on.....


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay,Maybe you

OrdinaryClay,

Maybe you should just back up and explain exactly what it is that you think Todangst was missing that would blow his argument out of the water.

-Triften


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:jcgadfly

thatonedude wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not really. You've been arguing that the paradox doesn't exist, not that you didn't see it.

Free will and omniscience can't exist together. Either the omniscient being knows what you will do before you do it or he's not an omniscient being.

Christianity tries to have both and can't see the problem.

What? I have never argued that. Are you mistaking me for OC?

Even your buddies can not keep your spin straight.

What actually happened was that you argued yourself into a corner and now all you have left is wordy repetition - a wordy form of tag - very common on the atheist boards.
 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
triften

triften wrote:

OrdinaryClay,

Maybe you should just back up and explain exactly what it is that you think Todangst was missing that would blow his argument out of the water.

-Triften

It is explained in the thread.

 

 


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

OrdinaryClay wrote:

thatonedude wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not really. You've been arguing that the paradox doesn't exist, not that you didn't see it.

Free will and omniscience can't exist together. Either the omniscient being knows what you will do before you do it or he's not an omniscient being.

Christianity tries to have both and can't see the problem.

What? I have never argued that. Are you mistaking me for OC?

Even your buddies can not keep your spin straight.

What actually happened was that you argued yourself into a corner and now all you have left is wordy repetition - a wordy form of tag - very common on the atheist boards.
 

Apologies, that one dude.

OC's intentional lack of understanding has gotten me squirrely

"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
OrdinaryClay wrote:triften

OrdinaryClay wrote:

triften wrote:

OrdinaryClay,

Maybe you should just back up and explain exactly what it is that you think Todangst was missing that would blow his argument out of the water.

-Triften

It is explained in the thread.

 

 

Except that it wasn't. You are simply claiming that your God is safe from scrutiny because of the attributes that his human creators gave to him.l

As humans created your God, it is only right that other humans should evaluate him.

"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