Christians, for my own sanity...

[LadyTevar]

Then there arose a reasoning among the, which of them should be the greatest. (47)And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child and set him by him, (48)And said unto them Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me; for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great

This is one reason why there's so much in-fighting amongst Christians... even back then the Apostles were trying to figure out who was the best among them. Despite several miracles that Luke chapter 9 details, despite walking with the one they believed to be The Christ of God, the Apostles got into a petty dickwaving contest.

But there's more:

And John answered and said Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. (50) And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

How many times have you heard "with us or against us"? How many Christian sects have that mentality, that you are With Them, in their own interpretation of the Bible and the Faith, or you're Against Them and Going To Hell? Far too many, enough that moderate Christians get drowned out in the shouting and, like I have, simply ducked our head and gone on.

Christians can be just as blinded by Self-Importance as any other human. Unfortunately, most Christians can find justification for their actions without ever realizing Jesus saw this in his Apostles, and warned them against it.

[Adrian Laguna]

I guess this is thread necromancy, but I have something new to add to the discussion. Something that I neglected to mention in the first place.

I still can't believe that people even refer to the "ontological proof" as if it was ever a legitimate philosophical argument. It's not just flawed, like Pascal's Wager; it has no substance in the first place. It's just as much of an arbitrary leap in logic as "I scratched my balls yesterday, therefore God exists."

It's actually a legitimate philosophical argument in a Platonic world. Where one can deduce the nature of the universe through reason alone, and "most perfect" equals "most real". In a Platonic world you can define God into existence.

We do not live in a Platonic world, and the only reliable way to understand the universe is through empiricism. It is what works best, in fact it is the only thing that works. However, the shadow of Plato looms large through history, and for a very long time his approach was considered valid to one extent or another. It was not until Kant's Critique of Pure Reason that Plato's shadow diminished. The man pretty much demolished the "House of Metaphysics".

The ontological argument may seem to be incredibly weak and easy to brush aside, and it is, for an empiricist. We all have the benefit of the work of countless philosophers and scientists who have laid down a view of the world that allows us to scoff at such silly things as Anslem's proof. You see similar things in physics. The concept of action-reaction pairs of forces seems pretty obvious to me, but if it was it wouldn't have taken a veritable genius like Newton to come-up with it and describe it. Another example, centripetal force is an apparently obvious thing, yet the existence of the phrase "centrifugal force" as well as its extensive use say otherwise.


And since I jumped back into this thread, a reply that's not quite as thought-out as the above:

Can an omnipotent and omniscient entity increase or change what it knows? Yes? Then it's not omniscient. No? Then it's not omnipotent.

Congratulations, you've just disproved omnipotence in the sense of "can do anything". However, that is not what I meant when I postulated an omnipotent and omniscient God. The classical definition, and classical definitions are important when talking about arguments older than most the countries in Europe, does not mean "can do anything". In fact, you can see it in what omnipotence literally means, "all powerful", that is, "capable of doing everything that's in within one's power to do". If there are things beyond God's power, that God can't do them is irrelevant to God's omnipotence.

[Surlethe]

In fact, you can see it in what omnipotence literally means, "all powerful", that is, "capable of doing everything that's in within one's power to do". If there are things beyond God's power, that God can't do them is irrelevant to God's omnipotence.

That definition's tautologically true; if it were useful, everyone would be omnipotent. You might be better off redefining omnipotence to mean "able to do anything which is not logically impossible."

[Rye]

In fact, you can see it in what omnipotence literally means, "all powerful", that is, "capable of doing everything that's in within one's power to do". If there are things beyond God's power, that God can't do them is irrelevant to God's omnipotence.

That definition's tautologically true; if it were useful, everyone would be omnipotent. You might be better off redefining omnipotence to mean "able to do anything which is not logically impossible."

Indeed. However, that said, some of the theologians' descriptions of God IIRC often had the insane definition and just claimed it was a divine mystery.

[Magus]

That definition's tautologically true; if it were useful, everyone would be omnipotent.

If one takes the "potent" part of omnipotent literally, then one could say that, while humans are ever able to improve their capabilities at least to some degree, God has always been operating at 100% of his potential. Of course, that would seem to imply that we could eventually surpass God's potential, but for our mortality.

[Wyrm]

Congratulations, you've just disproved omnipotence in the sense of "can do anything". However, that is not what I meant when I postulated an omnipotent and omniscient God. The classical definition, and classical definitions are important when talking about arguments older than most the countries in Europe, does not mean "can do anything". In fact, you can see it in what omnipotence literally means, "all powerful", that is, "capable of doing everything that's in within one's power to do". If there are things beyond God's power, that God can't do them is irrelevant to God's omnipotence.

What about a being that is incapable of doing anything, a nilpotent being? By definition, such a being has no power to do anything. Because it cannot do anything, it is capable of doing "everything that's within its power to do," which is absolutely jack-squat nothing. Therefore, this nilpotent being is omnipotent by this definition. Therefore, your definition of "omnipotent" is useless for what you're trying to prove about God.

[Wyrm]

*cough* Please excuse the double post.

We all have the benefit of the work of countless philosophers and scientists who have laid down a view of the world that allows us to scoff at such silly things as Anslem's proof. You see similar things in physics. The concept of action-reaction pairs of forces seems pretty obvious to me, but if it was it wouldn't have taken a veritable genius like Newton to come-up with it and describe it.

That it took a while to see the easily-grasped hole in the argument doesn't make the argument any less wrong. People thought from time immemorium that the sunrise was due to the motion on the part of the sun, rather being motion on the part of the earth. Did that make the argument correct?

Once the gaping hole in the ontological argument is uncovered, it then becomes easy to drive the proverbial truck through it. After Rye, the perfect million dollars in my bank account would exist. I do not have a million dollars in my bank accoung, perfect or otherwise. Therefore, the adjective "perfect" is insufficient to legislate the existence of any object it is applied to. This includes God.

[Darth Raptor]

That definition's tautologically true; if it were useful, everyone would be omnipotent. You might be better off redefining omnipotence to mean "able to do anything which is not logically impossible."

Indeed. However, that said, some of the theologians' descriptions of God IIRC often had the insane definition and just claimed it was a divine mystery.

I think you guys may be misinterpreting the argument. As I read it, "omnipotence" means the capability to do anything that's possible. Contrast this with the conventional definition of omnipotence that literally means the capability to do anything you can conceive. Creating the immovable object and then moving it is no longer a problem because it's nonsensical and therefore impossible even for an omnipotent.

[Surlethe]

I think you guys may be misinterpreting the argument. As I read it, "omnipotence" means the capability to do anything that's possible. Contrast this with the conventional definition of omnipotence that literally means the capability to do anything you can conceive. Creating the immovable object and then moving it is no longer a problem because it's nonsensical and therefore impossible even for an omnipotent.

The problem is not with the capability to do anything that's possible; it's with the assertion that you're omnipotent iff you're capable of anything within your power. That's what I meant when I called it tautologically true.

[raptor3x]

That definition's tautologically true; if it were useful, everyone would be omnipotent. You might be better off redefining omnipotence to mean "able to do anything which is not logically impossible."

Indeed. However, that said, some of the theologians' descriptions of God IIRC often had the insane definition and just claimed it was a divine mystery.

I think you guys may be misinterpreting the argument. As I read it, "omnipotence" means the capability to do anything that's possible. Contrast this with the conventional definition of omnipotence that literally means the capability to do anything you can conceive. Creating the immovable object and then moving it is no longer a problem because it's nonsensical and therefore impossible even for an omnipotent.

Doesn't that definition take away all of God's groovy supernatural powers?

[Surlethe]

Indeed. However, that said, some of the theologians' descriptions of God IIRC often had the insane definition and just claimed it was a divine mystery.

If you're going to do that in your theology, then you really can't progress any further in divining the characteristics of God. Every Christian has to accept "divine mystery" to some extent -- why doesn't God reveal himself through nature? Why are there bad things in the world? How far you're willing to take it is simply a measure of how irrational you're willing to be.

[Darth Raptor]

The problem is not with the capability to do anything that's possible; it's with the assertion that you're omnipotent iff you're capable of anything within your power. That's what I meant when I called it tautologically true.

I don't think it's saying that though, that's my point.

Doesn't that definition take away all of God's groovy supernatural powers?

Clarke's Third Law.

[Surlethe]

I don't think it's saying that though, that's my point.

From above:

"all powerful", that is, "capable of doing everything that's in within one's power to do"

[Rye]

I think you guys may be misinterpreting the argument. As I read it, "omnipotence" means the capability to do anything that's possible. Contrast this with the conventional definition of omnipotence that literally means the capability to do anything you can conceive. Creating the immovable object and then moving it is no longer a problem because it's nonsensical and therefore impossible even for an omnipotent.

I understand the argument, I'm a proponent of treating hypothetical and speculative gods as only contemplatable when they're logically consistent, however, there's always been religious types that think God isn't even subservient to logic, so he can contradict and still exist because his "power" allows him to do that/he's not bound by rules of logic/etc.

[Adrian Laguna]

In fact, you can see it in what omnipotence literally means, "all powerful", that is, "capable of doing everything that's in within one's power to do". If there are things beyond God's power, that God can't do them is irrelevant to God's omnipotence.

That definition's tautologically true; if it were useful, everyone would be omnipotent. You might be better off redefining omnipotence to mean "able to do anything which is not logically impossible."

Humans are not omnipotent, they cannot do everything that is within their power to do. It was within Hitler's powers to eradicate all 'undesirables' from his Third Reich, he failed. He failed because the great nations of the world stopped him and his cronies. It might be within your power to do something, but it is within the power of both other people and natural forces to stop you. God can do anything that is within God's power to do, Humans cannot.

What about a being that is incapable of doing anything, a nilpotent being? By definition, such a being has no power to do anything. Because it cannot do anything, it is capable of doing "everything that's within its power to do," which is absolutely jack-squat nothing. Therefore, this nilpotent being is omnipotent by this definition. Therefore, your definition of "omnipotent" is useless for what you're trying to prove about God.

An existent nilpotent being is a contradiction. If it exists, then it is doing something, but since it cannot do anything, then it cannot exist.

[Surlethe]

That definition's tautologically true; if it were useful, everyone would be omnipotent. You might be better off redefining omnipotence to mean "able to do anything which is not logically impossible."

Humans are not omnipotent, they cannot do everything that is within their power to do. It was within Hitler's powers to eradicate all 'undesirables' from his Third Reich, he failed. He failed because the great nations of the world stopped him and his cronies. It might be within your power to do something, but it is within the power of both other people and natural forces to stop you. God can do anything that is within God's power to do, Humans cannot.

You're missing the point, which is that "can do" and "have the power to do" are synonymous: for instance, just because other people can stop you doesn't mean that you're suddenly incapable of something.

[Wyrm]

What about a being that is incapable of doing anything, a nilpotent being? By definition, such a being has no power to do anything. Because it cannot do anything, it is capable of doing "everything that's within its power to do," which is absolutely jack-squat nothing. Therefore, this nilpotent being is omnipotent by this definition. Therefore, your definition of "omnipotent" is useless for what you're trying to prove about God.

An existent nilpotent being is a contradiction. If it exists, then it is doing something, but since it cannot do anything, then it cannot exist.

Bullocks. To describe "existing" as an actual power is really abusing the term. To not be able to do anything is a perfectly legitamate desireratum that doesn't say a thing about whether such a thing can exist. Existence of a nilpotent being doesn't depend on the being's abilities (which is to be nilpotent), only on a being's fulfillment of the stated desireratum of being nilpotent.

This "existence is a power" claim is really setting up the same defect as St. Anselm's ontological proof: The desireratum that God be "perfect" does not imply that any object actually fulfills this desireratum just because you've written it down, just like my desireratum of the million dollars in my bank account to be "perfect" doesn't require that any such group of a million dollars to fulfil this requirement.

And besides, even if I give you "existance is a power," your argument still doesn't work. A being incapable of existing still can do everything whatever it's in its power to do. To wit, nothing — including existing. It's still "omnipotent" by this silly definition.

Further, if we accept that existence is a power, and that the God of the Bible is omnipotent in the classic sense, then not only does this God exist (because a nonexistant but omnipotent God able to make himself exist), but also a cornucopia of other, equally omnipotent but distinct beings with the ability to make themselves exist, a subset of which are far more worthy objects of worship than the God of the Bible.