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.
 


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

OrdinaryClay wrote:

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.

I am not convinced that you have actually understood my argument at all, since you seem to labor under the delusion that I agree with you.

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:It is

OrdinaryClay wrote:

It is explained in the thread.

No, it isn't. You have yet to defend your assertion that the argument rests on incomplete axioms.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
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. 

Why did you not reply to the question?? You are dodging a key point directly relevant to the issue.

It only requires a simple yes or no, and would have been constructive in analyzing just where exactly you see the flaw(s) in Todangst's argument.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

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. 

Why did you not reply to the question?? You are dodging a key point directly relevant to the issue.

It only requires a simple yes or no, and would have been constructive in analyzing just where exactly you see the flaw(s) in Todangst's argument.

I asnwered more directly then had I just asnwered yes or no. You can't see that?
 


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

OrdinaryClay wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

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. 

Why did you not reply to the question?? You are dodging a key point directly relevant to the issue.

It only requires a simple yes or no, and would have been constructive in analyzing just where exactly you see the flaw(s) in Todangst's argument.

I asnwered more directly then had I just asnwered yes or no. You can't see that?
 

You evaded instead of answering. Why can't humans evaluate a creation of other humans?

"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 evaded

jcgadfly wrote:

You evaded instead of answering. Why can't humans evaluate a creation of other humans?

Hell, even assuming the existence of his god doesn't save his argument, as he seems to take it for granted that if a proposition is infinite, it can't be analyzed. He hasn't offered a proof of this even under his own framework. It's a groundless assumption, which he keeps repeating. We have many examples of things which have completely understood properties that are at the same time infinite, or "omni" as he likes to say.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

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. 

Why did you not reply to the question?? You are dodging a key point directly relevant to the issue.

It only requires a simple yes or no, and would have been constructive in analyzing just where exactly you see the flaw(s) in Todangst's argument.

I asnwered more directly then had I just asnwered yes or no. You can't see that?

You did not address the point of the question in any way. There is obviously plenty of scope for going beyond a simple "yes" or "no", but in this case even a simple response would have advanced our understanding of your position.

Your response was not an answer or clarification in any sense, simply a demand for a response to another question.

Why can't you see that the question was Balkoth 'spitting out' an important part of the 'paradox' and asking you to clarify your position on it.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

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. 

Why did you not reply to the question?? You are dodging a key point directly relevant to the issue.

It only requires a simple yes or no, and would have been constructive in analyzing just where exactly you see the flaw(s) in Todangst's argument.

I asnwered more directly then had I just asnwered yes or no. You can't see that?

You did not address the point of the question in any way. There is obviously plenty of scope for going beyond a simple "yes" or "no", but in this case even a simple response would have advanced our understanding of your position.

Why didn't you answer my question? It was a simple yes or no answer.

 

Quote:

Why can't you see that the question was Balkoth 'spitting out' an important part of the 'paradox' and asking you to clarify your position on it.

I saw exactly what the question was.


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

OrdinaryClay wrote:

I saw exactly what the question was.

So, you are being deliberately obtuse.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Quote:Why

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Quote:

Why can't you see that the question was Balkoth 'spitting out' an important part of the 'paradox' and asking you to clarify your position on it.

I saw exactly what the question was.

OK, so you are deliberately avoiding addressing the question which was a valid response to your request to tell you what the 'paradox' was.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
This thread has officially

This thread has officially moved into comedy territory.

 

"Who's on first."

"I told you Who's on first."

"I'm asking you, who is on first?"

"Exactly."

"Ah, so Exactly is on first."

"No, Exactly's the outfielder."

 

COMEDY!!!!

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


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

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

I saw exactly what the question was.

So, you are being deliberately obtuse.

Answering more directly is not being obtuse.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Quote:

Why can't you see that the question was Balkoth 'spitting out' an important part of the 'paradox' and asking you to clarify your position on it.

I saw exactly what the question was.

OK, so you are deliberately avoiding addressing the question which was a valid response to your request to tell you what the 'paradox' was.

On the contrary, I took the question head on.


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

OrdinaryClay wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Quote:

Why can't you see that the question was Balkoth 'spitting out' an important part of the 'paradox' and asking you to clarify your position on it.

I saw exactly what the question was.

OK, so you are deliberately avoiding addressing the question which was a valid response to your request to tell you what the 'paradox' was.

On the contrary, I took the question head on.

Saying that the question shouldn't be asked because the questioner isn't omniscient is not answering the question.

"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:Answering

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Answering more directly is not being obtuse.

You haven't answered anything. Tell us why you make the assumption that these things can't be analyzed.

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:

Answering more directly is not being obtuse.

You haven't answered anything. Tell us why you make the assumption that these things can't be analyzed.

You changed the subject, but I answered both.


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

OrdinaryClay wrote:

You changed the subject, but I answered both.

You haven't answered a goddamned thing. Either spit out your reason for thinking that infinite properties can't be analyzed, or admit that you have no justification and quit your feeble attempts at logic.

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

OrdinaryClay wrote:

thatonedude wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Answering more directly is not being obtuse.

You haven't answered anything. Tell us why you make the assumption that these things can't be analyzed.

You changed the subject, but I answered both.

Why are you lying to protect your God? Isn't that still a sin or did Jesus and Paul take care of that?

"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