An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo [Archive]

Lion IRC

31st May 2010, 12:18 PM

One of the fringe benefits of being invited to speak first is that none of your opening comments can really be called non-sequiturs.

My new best friend Davo appears to be on the verge of a “Road to Damascus” experience. In the space of a week or so, he has gone from holding up his hand in front of my face (as if the idea we are about to debate were no more than a truism) to ...”we had better have a FORMAL debate about this.”

I’m sure Davo will put up a brave effort...”regardless of the result” <--- See that!
Not just a pre-debate “throw away line”. A startling admission that the topic of this debate is no longer just some wiki page you can simply point to when you get flustered and words fail you.

It is conceded by Davo himself that the omnipotence and omniscience “paradox” needs a closer examination and may not stand up to the rigors of a formal debate.

And for that small admission of sorts, I am thankful because, not long ago, it was apparently a “waste of time” to discuss the matter with “an ignorant troll” like me. (By the way, thank you Davo for not listening to those people or else we wouldn’t be here having this debate.)

So I am going to continue the “formal debate” as I have elsewhere thus far on AFA. I am going to present my case to those of you who perhaps are now reconsidering the presuppositions upon which this so-called “paradox” rests. (You know who you are!)

If you are reading this debate it is because you are interested. You are doing the equivalent of turning around and looking to the back of the court room when the lawyers for the defence suddenly call a new “star witness” who will exonerate their client – you’re response proves the existence of reasonable doubt.

I am going to present the case in such a way that you MUST, at the very least, accept that the Iron Chariots Wiki claim is now in DOUBT if not all together rejected.

If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.

And it does take a truly brave person to bite off and attempt to chew the monumental mouthful of malarkey that Davo has, in offering to defend the idea proposed by some iron chariot wiki editor. (You do realise it is JUST a wiki don’t you?) It does not tell how to use words or what words mean. It is not censored. Wikis don’t tell you facts about future events. Who says that?

wikipedia.org.

So when I am confronted by Davo with a presupposition about God’s inability to do a certain “thing” I naturally ask...”says who”?

And when confronted by Davo with the reply...”there’s a wiki which says it” I feel the urge to laugh. Is he seriously going to try and argue what God can and cannot do because he read something on a wiki site?

God – the ne plus ultra of “magic wands”. The Supreme Being. The irresistible force who can turn Himself into an immovable object (perhaps a rock) The One who is simultaneously Alpha and Omega. This is the Divine Monotheistic entity whom Davo is going to confront with...”hey God I’ve got a 23 word wiki here which says...”

“If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.”

To which God could, if He wanted, respond by simply saying....”oh yeah? What about when I haven’t yet decided what WILL happen?”

This debate is going to be about demonstrating that the wiki proposition is NOT a paradox at all but rather, it is a false dilemma. It is the equivalent of saying since God can’t be in two places at once He can’t listen to two prayers both being made at the same time.

If you are going to call God Omnipotent – able to do ANYTHING, then by definition, any claim that God MUST do this or must do that fails outright.

God is not compelled to be omniscient 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (He doesn’t even have to work 7 days a week!) God can take a day off. He can afford to be undecided – He’s God. He can even afford to make a mistake. It’s not as if He can’t turn back the clock if He wants.

My final opening remark is about the bible which I should but won’t be using as a lamp unto my feet light unto my way in this debate. All scripture is profitable but in this case it isn’t needed. The only reason I might change my mind about this is if Davo introduces scriptural verses which of course he is welcome to do. In that event, readers will have to endure a bible study class between the two of us – which would be lovely but I’m sure most of you would recognize as being off-topic and it would be clear who was trying to change the topic. This debate is purely about whether an omniscient being is compelled to be omniscient against its own will.

I will argue that being able to know everything there is to know is an ability – not a restriction to ones ability. When Mr Hitchens speaks about “mind-forged manacles” he rather plainly proves my point. When we watch a movie for the second time and wilfully ignore or suspend our ability to recall how it ends to heighten our own enjoyment of the re-run this also proves my point. When God says, “I don’t know what I am going to do tomorrow He is telling the truth.

The preceding comments outline my approach to;

the topic in general

my good-natured but ill-advised opponent

the scope of the argument

davo

31st May 2010, 03:55 PM

Typically when starting a debate, one presents ones case that they will be talking about. I will cut to the quick of the debate rather than obfuscate the presentation as my opponent appears to have done, I will directly approach the topic and what I will be covering. I will try and keep my opening introduction short.

The omnipotence and omniscience paradox is quite clear, and will fully stand up to the rigors of a formal debate. I have never said otherwise, nor inferred it.

The other important point is it is the task of my opponent as the affirmative, is to show that an omnipotent and omniscient god is logical. My task is to show that this is false.

First let us define the argument we will be discussing, as is customary.

Omniscience comes from the Latin "omni-" (all) + "scire" (to know) = to know all.

Omniscience is the property of having complete or maximal knowledge. The dictionary Merriam Webster states omniscient means having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight, possessed of universal or complete knowledge, and the Oxford English dictionary as One having total knowledge, knowing everything.

It is a state of all-knowing, a perfection of totality, a perfection of knowing all.

My opponent appears from the outset trying to redefine the term specifically based on religious views, and by a phrase coined by John Polkinghorne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne) being 'inherent omniscience', that being the potential to have infinite knowledge. He has already claimed that his god can know everything but chooses not too. My opponent will most probably take this position throughout the whole debate, with defining words according to faith, rather that their true form. These meanings derived from faith interpretations are varied based on concepts of gods. Considering that these are faith based derivatives of defined words created over time, and that many of faith take the literal meaning of the words, it is rightly so that we use the true meaning of a word, and not its interpretation based on belief as this effectively means that a word not only means nothing, but the premise that the construct of the debate argument is by default, an error in reasoning and thus not logical.

His source for this conceptual break down of meaning is namely a Mr Polkinghorne and some other modern theologians that have only recently coined this phrase. Quite succinctly, the phrase they are using is not a totality, in fact, it is simply renaming an ability provided by the claim of omnipotence, (able to do anything due to being all powerful). Very different logical spheres.

Potentiality is not actuality. I have the potential to be a doctor, does not mean I am a doctor. I have the potential to be a rapist, does not mean I am a rapist, I have the potential to be drowned, does not mean I am drowned.

Omniscience is a very accurate state, simple in it's definition.

To define omniscience as the 'potentiality' for omniscience, is not logical. One cannot be 'half way up a ladder' to perfection, and also 'be at the top of it'.

Omniscience also has the problem of experiential knowledge, requiring a god that is omniscient having had the experience of 'sinning' as just one example, or ultimate evil for another. It would also require the experience of having no power, and no omniscience, both at the same time. This is not logical.

Omniscience is also the ability to not only know what for instance has been, but could be. It is also the ability to know all that one knows as an element of oneself knowing itself. This creates an infinite loop that is illogical.

Omnipotence from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power, a state of having unlimited, maximal power or authority. The Oxford English dictionary states, having unlimited power; able to do anything, having ultimate power and influence: an omnipotent sovereign. Again this is a clear state of perfection. It is the ability to do anything.

When we define logical, the dictionary states of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic, formally true or valid. This holds that the argument is consistent as presented, in this case a god that holds the properties of omniscience and omnipotence.

To-wit, I will argue that a being that knows everything (omniscient) and maximally powerful (omnipotent) is not logical based on numerous issues with such.

An omnipotent being could create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it (illogical)

An omnipotent god could make 1 + 1 = 3 (illogical)

An omnipotent god could make a round square (illogical)

An omnipotent god could make a stone a feather (illogical)

An omniscient god would know what it is going to do tomorrow, one that was also omnipotent would be able to do what he didn't expect. (illogical)

The list goes on, but I will hold on a more in depth analysis as this is just an introduction.

Once my opponent has shown that omniscience and omnipotence are logical, he must also show that an omniscient and omnipresent god is logical, as per the topic of the debate.

Logical means reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning and more especially of inference and of scientific method, it is the study of the principles of correct reasoning to a conclusion that can be shown as true and valid.

Lion IRC

1st June 2010, 02:27 PM

Lion IRC

1st June 2010, 02:34 PM

The meanings of the words omniscience and omnipotence are not in dispute here. Where my objection arises is in the claim that knowing everything then prevents a Being from acting upon that knowledge. That is an exceptionally egregious error in logic and a bizarre form of special pleading. A packet of knowledge how ever big or small does not disempower the possessor of that knowledge. Imagine if I were to write to A.C Graying with the proposition that the continuous acquisition of knowledge up until the “jar” mentioned in the example below contained ALL knowledge would result in ones Omnipotence being less that what it was before one commenced filling the “jar”. Knowledge is power. Does the Iron Chariot wiki think this is an illogical paradox also? I assert that knowledge IS power because it affords one choices. The less knowledge we have the fewer are our choices. This is true in computer games with platform based advancement where acquiring more knowledge directly equates to more skills. This is true in education and vocation where the more you learn, the more you earn. This is true in internet forum administration where the “knowledge” that you can make someone’s post simply disappear affords you the power to sit back let things happen “at random” safe in the KNOWLEDGE that it will all work out fine in the end.

Let’s now drill down even further to the heart of the philosophy of this debate. And apologies to those of you who mistakenly think this debate is about anything other than (or disguised as) philosophy. If philosophy is not for you, you have my sympathy. Think of it as meta-physics and knowledge as a quantum mechanical device.

I tried to “think of” (ie. draw from my own knowledge at will) philosophers who might carry some weight with the AFA home crowd and whose thoughts about the theory of knowledge might be a little more influential. I myself never made it past “A” in the philosophy dictionary – Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas and by the time I had “acquired knowledge” in some degree about these former great men or philosophy the latter Schopenhauer’s and Nietzsche’s simply looked uninspiring, dull and morose and they….(oops not today. That’s another debate sorry) But in amongst the “A”s I did stumble across a name whose work on the theory of knowledge seemed impress Bertrand Russell* (he too is way down the alphabetical list along with Roscelin) I am speaking of course of Abelard who was a student of Roscelin. Roscelin was thought by Russell to be a mean spirited and unpleasant character on account of the fact that he ridiculed Abelard for being a castrati. Russell didn’t mention “uninspiring, dull and morose” but that may have been because….(Doh! sorry)
*See Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy.

Abelards work on the theory of knowledge with his focus on dialectics, relatedness of universals and certainty seem to incorporate a view with in itself is “logical” that reality and logic are concomitant. In other words, whether or not we think a proposed reality is illogical is irrelevant. The fact that God can in reality do something we (mistakenly) think is illogical is not a flaw on the part of reality – or God for that matter. But rather a failure of our ability to conceive. In this respect he reminds us of the logical positivists who basically discard anything which in reality cannot be investigated in order to “acquire knowledge” as irrelevant. This is much akin to AC Graylings advice** about the usefulness or otherwise of “knowledge acquired” from the internet. If we cannot “know” or verify (ascertain truth) about a proposed reality what use is it? Abelard appears to caution against reading a definition of “related” things in such a way as would make them incomprehensible and I accordingly argue that the construction of a theory of knowledge in which the person who holds that knowledge has no volition or ability to select from the “available menu options” is a reflection on our poor grasp of reality.
*See AC Grayling 19th January 2009 New Scientist and Abelard’s metaphoric use of the term “respiciendo” and “respicere” in Logica Ingredientibus.

My fundamental claim is that Omniscience and Omnipotence are related. Whether there is a theological implication is secondary. But we need not assume the only Omniscient/Omnipotent being is God.

We could just as easily debate in respect to a being who had a jar balanced on their head which contained everything there was to know about a movie Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. They had watched the move so often they knew everything. And each factoid was stored in the jar. The movie was no longer exciting. The being already knew the beginning and the ending. They knew all the songs. Along comes an “Oompa Loompa” one day and says "why don’t you take the jar and smash it then it will be like watching the movie for the first time". The being with the jar says …”Can I do that?” and the Oompa Loompa replies "of course you can – you’re God. Who is gonna stop you?" The Being replies, “so I can even magically return the jar and its contents to their original state and put it back on top of my head if I want.”

Omniscience IS a very accurate state. It really does mean the ENTIRE theory and corpus of knowledge. The verb “to know” is quite aptly applied because like all verbs it epistemologically applies to the ACT of knowing. An act which follows subsequent to the verb which relates to seeking knowledge previously NOT known.
There is an essential characteristic of knowledge requires that it is part of a verb. To know. To posses knowledge. I argue that the connection and relatedness between knowledge and the theory of knowledge as a form of verb (to possess knowledge) is such that Omniscience and Omnipotence are truly “respiciendo”.

The only way a logical positivist could find out if God is Omniscient is to keep asking Him questions about everything into infinity. When I am asked “do you know the name of the Admin person at AFA” I could safely answer yes. But what if I thought the nick name was the knowledge being sought and the real question was about Protiums personal name. A second question would be needed and a second answer.

Davo says “To 'access knowledge' you have to know of the knowledge” and I need only respond by asking what part of the word “Omnipotent” implies “need to…”. What Omnipotent Being is forced by a non-omnipotent - under what duress? Do I really need to remind Davo that an Omnipotent Being can destroy and create. He could make Davo disintegrate and everyone would wonder where you went. He could turn back time and nobody would wonder where you went. How would you then get a message to God that ““To 'access knowledge' you have to know of the knowledge” You declare God has to do what you say. I hold the exact opposite view. Omnipotence means all powerful.

Any declaration about God being “compelled” repudiates the very foundation of your case because you are no longer talking about God.

God can at His own divine pleasure and in His own good time say…"not now Davo I have a million billion trillion things on my plate. Maybe later".

Knowledge has a fundamental ethereal quality that it there to be used and it is dynamic not static. This stands to reason because knowledge itself is transitory. Our own database of knowledge continuously changes with time. We interact with knowledge. We consume it and we generate it.

We observe dynamic omniscience in the ability of the actual Being which possesses that knowledge DIRECTLY from the related and corresponding dynamic omnipotence of that Being. If God knows EVERYTHING then He logically and irrefutably knows how become ignorant. He can summarise omnipotence in a 10,000 word post and by divine fiat grant us the knowledge to understand it.

The relatedness and mutual interdependence of Omnipotence and Omniscience is such that ONLY an Omnipotent Being could logically posses all knowledge. The claimed paradox at the Iron Chariot wiki should read….How can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?

If there were two contenders for the Title of Omnipotent being we would as a matter of plain logical positivism and empiricism seek to ascertain the extent of their respective ABILITIES. Which contender can recite the value of pi to the furthest number of decimal places? Which one can tie their shoe laces the fastest? Which one can speak the most foreign languages? And…..now here is the kicker! The head shot. Ask both contenders to draw on their dualistic skills of Omniscience and Omnipotence - Who was the first Prime Minister of Australia? First one to answer wins.

How the hell can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?

Lion (IRC)

(End of split post to meet 10K character limit versus 10K word limit under the rules.)

davo

1st June 2010, 07:44 PM

Post #2

OK its official. Davo really does want to take on the ne plus ultra of magic wands. He really does want to put himself in the position of being prognosticator of how God could and could not act. Actually I’m not convinced that he should be burdened with the fakery put upon his back by the person who typed out the "paradox" he is being asked to defend and which I am going to reveal as a sham. Or to make clear my sympathy towards his position by way of

analogy Davo is to Iron Chariot as Puzzle is to Shift

For the casual reader I point out this along with my opponents first post, is an error of reasoning called a Personal Attack logical fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html). Not the best to use this type of argument when you have to show your view is logical.

I would also point out, my opponents posts seem to not carry really any content or response to the issues raised directly related to the logic of the claim, but has resorted to the Gish Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop).

I have tried to whittle things down to the actual argument, I haven't really found it as yet. I politely request of you Lion, to actually approach the debate points raised. I will mark some for you as I go, but feel free to extend on that.

Davo says it is the task of his opponent as to show that an omnipotent and omniscient god is logical. This is partly true but in seeking to defend a wiki page proposition Dave need not direct all his efforts at attempting defensive arguments.

My task is to argue the debate topic "An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical" not a wiki page. your task is to approach my points raised, and vice versa. I don't see you doing that in all honesty. I gave quite explicit examples.

The Iron Chariots link was just one sample of the results of the Ominiscience and Omnipotence claim. It's not on trial (tho very good example), to try and frame the topic on something that isn't really relevant is a logical fallacy called a Red Herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html).

If I can persuade Davo and all the readers here that an alternative exists to the false dilemma inherent in the Iron Chariot proposition, then I will not only have proven that the co-existence Omniscience and Omnipotence is "logical" but I will simultaneously have proven that it is not "illogical".

Point of note, the topic is "An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical", not the wiki post given as an example of the issues the topic presents.

But while your at it, I ask you directly "Does God know what he's going to do tomorrow? If so, could he do something else?". Please respond to the question, to be honest I am having trouble finding any real content to your post, this may give me something to actually work with.

And THAT is how logic works.

No it doesn't ... you just committed an error of reasoning called a logical fallacy, specifically Hasty Generalisation (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html)

It has nothing to do with Davo’s faith that there is no God to debate

I have made no such claim. Please withdraw your comment or show where I have done so.

I am an atheist, I do not have a belief in a god or gods. I make no claim there is no god, I am making the statement that an omniscient and omnipotent god is not logical. From that (outside the topic of the debate) I have come to the conclusion the god you claim with those cannot exist.

In fact I’m surprised that the name Polkinghorne is mentioned at all – AT ALL!

No, to be clear, I said "My opponent appears from the outset trying to redefine the term specifically based on religious views, and by a phrase coined by John Polkinghorne being 'inherent omniscience', that being the potential to have infinite knowledge."

You were quite clear in your original post. "When God says, "I don’t know what I am going to do tomorrow He is telling the truth."

If he does not know what he is going to do tomorrow, please show the logic in him also knowing what he is going to do tomorrow (omniscience)

If he does not know, he is not omniscient.

Point of request : Please show how this is logical, that not knowing something is omniscience, when it is a total contradiction.

The meanings of the words omniscience and omnipotence are not in dispute here. Where my objection arises is in the claim that knowing everything then prevents a Being from acting upon that knowledge. That is an exceptionally egregious error in logic and a bizarre form of special pleading.

Point of request : Where have I claimed this at all?

A packet of knowledge how ever big or small does not disempower the possessor of that knowledge. Imagine if I were to write to A.C Graying with the proposition that the continuous acquisition of knowledge up until the "jar" mentioned in the example below contained ALL knowledge would result in ones Omnipotence being less that what it was before one commenced filling the "jar".

? another point of request : where have I claimed this? I'm not sure what you are saying, to be honest.

Both omniscience and omnipotence are impossible as a set for a 'being'. I am not arguing lesser of anything. I am stating to claim these properties, is illogical. A god that is both is illogical.

I tried to "think of" (ie. draw from my own knowledge at will) philosophers who might carry some weight with the AFA home crowd and whose thoughts about the theory of knowledge might be a little more influential.

Appeal to Authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)

But in amongst the "A"s I did stumble across a name whose work on the theory of knowledge seemed impress Bertrand Russell* (he too is way down the alphabetical list along with Roscelin) I am speaking of course of Abelard who was a student of Roscelin. Roscelin was thought by Russell to be a mean spirited and unpleasant character on account of the fact that he ridiculed Abelard for being a castrati. Russell didn’t mention "uninspiring, dull and morose" but that may have been because….(Doh! sorry)
*See Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy.

Name dropping appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name-dropping)

I'm not a philosopher, I would have loved to have had the chances you obviously did, but please approach my requests. (point of order for mods, I request that the Affirmative actually approach the topic, and the relevent questions I have given in regard explicit examples of illogic presented. I debate is approaching the points of an argument raised, not just making a case for your position avoiding, well the actual debate.)

.... continued

davo

1st June 2010, 07:49 PM

My fundamental claim is that Omniscience and Omnipotence are related. Whether there is a theological implication is secondary. But we need not assume the only Omniscient/Omnipotent being is God.

I am not making any claims, other than an omniscient and omnipotent god being is illogical, as per the topic.

But ok I will state any being claimed to hold both those properties is illogical too.

Omniscience IS a very accurate state. It really does mean the ENTIRE theory and corpus of knowledge.

Agreed.

Point of request :

An omniscient being knows all future and past facts. This means these facts are unchangable, as the omniscient being already knows that they would change it and to what, it's omniscient, the 'sum of all knowledge'.

The existence of this being would be immutable, unchangable. This being would be powerless to change the future. The only way it could change the immutable knowledge it has of the future would to not be omniscient.

But not being able to change the future, would mean that this being was not omnipotent.

How is a being that is both omniscient and omnipotent possible, let alone logical?

Please show us the reasoning you are presenting. The logic.

The only way a logical positivist could find out if God is Omniscient is to keep asking Him questions about everything into infinity.

There is no need to find out. This is over the logic of such a being existing. My or anyone elses ability to 'find out' the truth of this is irrelevant. Please show how my knowing if a being is omniscient is relevant to it being omniscient or not.

I will point out right here, if you are saying you cannot find out unless you ask, it is not logical to claim that such a being exists against all the logic issues with the claim in the topic presented so far that you just fail to confront. At all.

Davo says “To 'access knowledge' you have to know of the knowledge” and I need only respond by asking what part of the word “Omnipotent” implies “need to…”. What Omnipotent Being is forced by a non-omnipotent - under what duress?

What? I am not forcing anything. I am asking directly how such a being can logically exist. This has nothing to do with me, but it.

Any declaration about God being “compelled” repudiates the very foundation of your case because you are no longer talking about God.

I'm not 'compelling' it anything. I am stating, again, that the claim that a god is both omniscient and omnipotent, is illogical. I have presented arguments and you fail to confront them.

Knowledge has a fundamental ethereal quality that it there to be used and it is dynamic not static. This stands to reason because knowledge itself is transitory. Our own database of knowledge continuously changes with time. We interact with knowledge. We consume it and we generate it.

But we are not omniscient.

Point of request : Please show how it is logical to know everything, the sum of all possible that could be known, as well as be all powerful, and for example, do something that you didn't already know you were going to do.

Please show me the logic I am missing in this argument. I'm waiting.

We observe dynamic omniscience in the ability of the actual Being which possesses that knowledge DIRECTLY from the related and corresponding dynamic omnipotence of that Being.

Point of request: Show me the evidence you are presenting here or withdraw the statement. This is effectively Begging the question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html)

The relatedness and mutual interdependence of Omnipotence and Omniscience is such that ONLY an Omnipotent Being could logically posses all knowledge.

Point of request : show the actual evidence for this or withdraw your statement.

The claimed paradox at the Iron Chariot wiki should read….How can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?

Are you saying it's powerless not to be dumb? :P

If there were two contenders for the Title of Omnipotent being we would as a matter of plain logical positivism and empiricism seek to ascertain the extent of their respective ABILITIES.

Irrelevant. There is no need for us to seek to ascertain this. If your position is logical, it would be independant of what I knew.

How the hell can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?

I'd be very carefull refuting you whole attempt at some(?) sort of an argument in one sentence. Are you saying it is powerless to be otherwise?

I will leave you with a thought, can this all knowing being suprise himself?

oh and just for you, a quote from Abelard, if he was around today I wonder if he would still think the same with regards Limbo? hmmm

By doubting we come to inquiry; and through inquiry we perceive truth.
--- Peter Abelard

Lion IRC

2nd June 2010, 03:21 PM

Post # 3

Oh dear. The water is getting deeper in this debate.

Yesterday I introduced details of the first of three themes I will be taking up in this debate – The inseparable relatedness of omnipotence and omniscience. I have also already stated the fundamental points which lead us to this point.

1. The wiki page is just is a point of view. There could be 10,000 people who agree with it or just 1 – its author. There are certainly more than 10,000 who disagree as well. (God exists therefore the paradox must not be real)

2. You do not have to be a theist or an atheist to address the topic. It does not have to be an AvT agenda. We are talking about a concept.

3. The side of the argument I support can be won just as easily as the side Davo supports can be lost. I don’t need to (but I can) prove that my position is logical simply by showing that his is illogical. Someone who claims this is not so does not regard logical and illogical as opposites.

Now, in phase two, I am going to wade into the murky depths of what knowledge actually is. The grey areas. The subjective areas.

But first a couple of asides. (Yes, Davo and I are entitled to a little banter and good natured jibes sprinkled in amongst the substance of the debate.)

Never proof read AFTER you have already posted. You will always see things you want to change. I flick myself on the cheek for proof reading while at work and rushing to post but I expect that the eyes of intelligent reader probably edited the obvious mistakes and other people probably didn’t even notice. (eg Dave/Davo) Its OK. I make similar errors in live debates. With oral debates sometimes people at the back can’t hear what you say anyway. The last thing I would want is for people to think “he’s cutting and pasting from somewhere else”. No this is me – warts and all.

Nonetheless, since there was an unsolicited request from the audience along the lines of …”I can’t hear you” I WILL make my paragraphs shorter.

After this debate I will ask Davo if he would like to re-submit to me via PM any or all his posts with the ability to make any final edits and airbrush out any parts deemed imperfect or faulty with the benefit of hindsight. And me likewise to him. Not to add items we forgot but to polish what we did and fix up the few instances where we may have felt….”beg” was better than “implore” or “might be” was better than “must be” etc.

Now, my reference to Davo as Puzzle was not a personal attack. Puzzle is a sympathetic character in the book and the nasty Shift preys on Puzzles misguided loyalty. When the reader finds out that the deception (sham paradox) perpetrated by that ugly Ape (Iron Chariot Wiki) amounts to cruelty against a kind and innocent animal (a Donkey named Puzzle) I hope this will be accepted in good faith. (Do atheists use words like bona fide and con fide?)

At the very least, readers might appreciate that I am trying to help Davo save face by demonstrating that we are about arguing someone else’s dubious wiki claim for which he should not be held responsible.

Cynics might also contemplate that I am using the …”its just a wiki” approach as a gambit tactic to tempt him into claiming… “no it isn’t, most people – most really smart people – most really smart Scottish people all agree with that wiki”.

The final house keeping point I must make is that when I want to address a claim made by Davo I make a point to state his name as the originator of the claim.

If, in the course of an argument I say for example, “it may be claimed that Omnipotence is….blah blah blah” that is simply a rhetorical device.

So onwards we go.

Into the “quantum weirdness” of knowledge.

Into the Zen of knowledge.

Into the world…nay, the universe…nay, the multiverse of awareness of enlightenment - information - consciousness – sentience – satori.

And I would like to begin with a Zen-like challenge to you, the reader and Davo to ask yourselves…”how full is your cup of knowledge?”

You may have been like the novice Zen monk whose mouth began to move before they even fully comprehended the question. Did you answer quickly and instinctively to try and impress your Zen master with your “knowledge? – poor you! Beware of Master Huang-po’s bamboo cane*. Did you answer without even drawing from your overflowing cup of knowledge? Perhaps you answered by saying nothing because you are more greatly enlightened than the person asking you the question and you “pursue not the outer entanglements” nor “dwell on the inner voids” but are “serene in the oneness of things.”*
*SeeThe Golden Age of Zen: Zen Masters of the T'Ang Dynasty By John C. H. Wu, Jingxiong Wu
* See the writings of 6th century Zen patriarch Seng-ts'an

The Zen Koans show in a very lovely way, that attempting to define “all knowledge” in an empirical way is as slippery a task as trying to define matter. And so we leave the Zen Masters and move on to the Dreamers of Physics.

Who here, knowing (thinking we know) about Werner Heisenberg, could possibly argue that “alternative choices” equals a LACK of knowledge? Knowledge that a “thing” is not as predictable as first thought is STILL knowledge.

The HUP was hailed as a discovery. An omniscient being must surely “know” about Quantum “weirdness”. Is the HUP a “paradox”? No. If it represents Truth - even though it appears “Gonzo” it is automatically a part of the T.O.E. which God calls the Unified Knowledge of Everything.

In order to assert something “scientific” about Omniscience we must, of course, as scientific and rational empiricists be able to demonstrate some facts about Omniscience. But what are the facts about “knowledge”. Is it a tree from which we pick fruit that we can’t properly digest and can never fill our “cups”?

Are there 2 cups full of knowledge from which the Omniscient Being can choose? One cup being the knowledge about math’s and science and the other cup being full of the knowledge of ethics and morality? Does the internal dialogue in our heads about which cup of “knowledge” we will and won’t use in any particular case detract from our 2 cup omniscience?

I asserted in my last post that Omniscience is linked to the dynamism manifest in Omnipotence. That the two are joined as mechanism and agent are joined. I stated that. ”We observe dynamic omniscience in the ability of the actual Being which possesses that knowledge DIRECTLY from the related and corresponding dynamic omnipotence of that Being”

(Cont...)

Lion IRC

2nd June 2010, 03:29 PM

(Cont...)

Davo challenges this claim and asks me to withdraw but I cannot.

Why? Because I have “thought” about it. I posted it after having exercised my “knowledge” about the observed world and the imagined world of an Omniscient Being. How would I know what an Omniscient being “thinks” without considering the dynamic and corresponding ACTIONS to which the thoughts of that Omniscient being are connected? My very thoughts… (awareness/knowledge/sentience/enlightenment) about whether or not to “post” or “withdraw a post” of one of my very own thoughts (again - awareness/knowledge/sentience/enlightenment) are the precise “dynamic” actions which I assert needs to be OBSERVED/PERCEIVED.

Knowledge is not as simple a “notion” as Davo would have you believe. You can’t measure it in a cup. It doesn’t exist like some Newtonian physics concept. I can “know” a thing without having to HOLD that thing in my immediate consciousness.

I don’t walk around all day continuously knowing all things in case I desire to USE one of those quanta of knowledge for something. The omniscience of God does NOT depending upon how long it takes Him to answer Who was the first Prime Minister of Australia?

Omniscience is to Omnipotence as Matter is to Energy. Davo would have us think of knowledge like the ancient atomists thought of matter and void. I would have you broaden your minds (awareness/knowledge/sentience/enlightenment) and think more deeply about the concept of “knowing” Latin scient - from sciens, scire, Latin, "to know".

Knowledge is NOT a very plain and simple concept. If it were, we could add to our “jar” of knowledge the answer another false dilemma which troubled the ancient Greeks. Does an arrow which is moving through space occupy, momentarily, a series of fixed points, for a fixed period of time?

Would an Omniscient Being know how many attoseconds the arrow remained in one point before it moved to the very next point it occupied exactly one attosecond later?

God might look at any paradox proposed by humans and say…”I told you the tree of knowledge would lead you to an early grave”.

I saw a request from Davo to answer a question about whether God knows what He is going to do tomorrow. Here is a very good place to address that question while we are at this point in the discussion. What does Davo mean by the word “know”? If God asked Himself, “do I know what I am going to do tomorrow He might well answer yes – anything I bloody well want. Does that mean that He does not know? Of course not. Because that is part of the “fuzziness” of knowledge.

By the way – I would like to remind readers that the above request from Davo to find out what God knows comes from the same mouth as the one which declared…[quote]”There is no need to find out. This is over the logic of such a being existing. My or anyone elses ability to 'find out' the truth of this is irrelevant. Please show how my knowing if a being is omniscient is relevant to it being omniscient or not.”[Unquote]

Suppose God wanted to Create knowledge the way Mozart imagined a new musical composition. Is it not logical that the Being who invented all known musical instruments and who knew every single possible note combination capable of being produced on those instruments can ALSO compose NEW music.

Even if God memorized all music to the point of musical Omniscience He could still enjoy the sound of silence. He could still pick up a violin and play music which He hadn’t listened to for a while. We might “know” The Marriage of Figaro Overture by heart. When we hear it, what is the logical basis to conclude that it MUST sound boring simply because of our Omniscience? Omniscience does not mean a broken record playing over and over and over in our head – a constant wall of noise composed of “knowledge”.

I argue that Omniscience is nothing more than a really good memory.
Davo doesn’t like me using human knowledge comparisons arguing that we are not omniscient how would we know whether God enjoys dusting off an old record He hasn’t listened to in many years. Well, I then respond, how is it that a human at Iron Chariot presumes to know what “knowledge” feels like to God?

In summary of this post…”knowledge” is not a clearly defined precise “thing”. It is nebulous and ethereal. It is like fuzzy logic, and Gonzo Marketing* and Quantum Weirdness and all the other ironic but true - paradoxical but true manifestations of “knowledge”.
*See The Life and Work of Hunter S Thomson and Christopher Locke’s book

Davo concludes his last post with a rhetorical question asking whether God can be surprised. I answer thus….What would God do if He wanted to experience the feeling of “surprise” He would take that magic wand of His and wave it.

Lion (IRC)
PS - I will clear up the rules via PM and remedy prior to the next post.

[FONT=Verdana]Point of order to the mods (Apparently permitted under the rules)

Can you please stop Lion IRC from using debate strategies and tactics which might unduly persuade the audience. LOL

Of course he uses appeal to authority (the AFA home crowd). Of course he is using the logic device that that something can be shown to be “logical” by demonstrating that its opposite is illogical.

It’s the very nature of rhetorical debate. I am using a mixture of persuading TOWARDS my proposition and persuading AGAINST my opponents position. Of course I am attacking the alleged paradox and proposing an alternative. Imagine a defense lawyer being told by the prosecution that any evidence that “someone else did it” is inadmissible.

Whether or not Davo chooses to remain silent about the purported “logic” of his own position is his choice. He is more than welcome to assume that his position needs no explanation or reasoning.

davo

2nd June 2010, 08:46 PM

I will lay out the logic as to why the claim of the topic is illogical, something you will note Lion IRC has not done at all. Simply danced around and avoided it.

This is an important point for the casual reader, that the Affirmative (Lion IRC) is not using logic at all to argue that omniscience and omnipotence are logical. He is avoiding it.

This is how someone does logic Lion IRC who is not trying to hide the fact their position has none.

Let me have a go at this high end philosophy stuff you keep namedropping about whilst you twirl your twirls and weave your little web of confusion .. let's see if I can tackle these issues regarding the topic claim of "An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical" and make my bumbling around in presenting myself clearer for you:

1/ An omniscient being knows all future and past facts, including all possibilities and experiences any of those possibilities could have.

2/ This means these facts are unchangable as the omniscient being already knows that they would change it and to what, there is no way these facts were not known.

3/ The result is the existence of this being would be immutable, unchangable. This being would be powerless to change the future as it already knows what it would change, it knows EVERYTHING.

4/ The only way it could change the immutable knowledge it has of the future would to not be omniscient.

5/ But not being able to change the future, would mean that this being was not omnipotent.

Lion IRC : How is a being that is both omniscient and omnipotent possible given it is clearly illogical for something to have both these traits?

Please show us the logic of your position. This is what you need to do to combat what I have shown of it being illogical. Approach the points in the actual logic and show us the error of logic I am committing. Show us the logic in the position you are taking that clearly shows I am wrong.

Your omniscient and omnipresent god is not logical.

Lion IRC's claims during the debate :

Likewise, my case necessarily includes proofs that my opponent’s position is illogical

- I'm waiting on this, please show how the above is illogical, I've asked a few times now.

When God says, “I don’t know what I am going to do tomorrow He is telling the truth.

- Lion IRC clearly refuting his argument by defining his god as not knowing something. ie: what he is going to do tomorrow. a total contradiction.

How the hell can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?

- Lion IRC again showing that an Omnipotent god can't do something. He refutes himself in one sentence, the pinnacle point that his post led up too.. a total contradiction.

Ie: an omniscient and omnipotent god is not logical and dare I say it, the only way it's cult can defend it is with the Gish Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop) or sophistry, as people here see quite well. It's quite sad to see the gymnastics in action really :\

I pretty much call the debate over. I'm not sure what point there is in going on if none of the stuff I am presenting is going to be confronted AT ALL.

My opponent is not approaching any of my points which is what a debate is about, and has refuted himself a number of times.

Lion IRC

3rd June 2010, 03:47 AM

Wow Davo, that was a short post. You have heaps of time. Don't rush it.
This is what short and sweet looks like if you are debating in a Tweet-like fashion - or Internet Relay Chat

Verbs.
To Walk
To Run
To Fly
To Remember
To Forget
To Recall
To Know
To Think
To Regret
To Smite
To Want
To Love

These verbs are all actions - abilities.

The essential meaning of the word "omnipotent" is total ability.

Are there any of these verbs which God cannot do?

No. The alleged "paradox" itself compels us to accept that God can DO anything. If we abandon the notion that God can do ANYTHING then we must throw 50% of the Iron Chariot Wiki false dilemma in the trash can.

It asserts that the verb "to know" and "All Powerful are mutually exclusive.

To claim that there is something an ALL powerful Being cannot do is Illogical.

To claim (as I do) that an All Powerful Being CAN do anything He wants IS logical.

Lion (IRC)
PS- Now you made me waste one of my posts! The next one will last longer. Reminds me of a joke about the wife who grabs her husband one morning and says make love to me right NOW! Afterwards the husband says that was nice. The wife says yeah thanks, the egg timer is broken and goes back to making her breakfast.

davo

3rd June 2010, 10:45 AM

Wow Davo, that was a short post. You have heaps of time. Don't rush it.

Oh I'm not going to rush it. As the saying goes, I'm not stuck here with you ... you are stuck here with me :)

These verbs are all actions - abilities.

The essential meaning of the word "omnipotent" is total ability.

Indeed, as is omniscience.

Are there any of these verbs which God cannot do?

I wish I could ask this god, unfortunately considering there is a remarkable lack of evidence at all for one, simply assertions, we can only go by what those people here in reality claim their gods properties are.

No. The alleged "paradox" itself compels us to accept that God can DO anything.

And know all at the same time. All. Don't forget that bit.

If we abandon the notion that God can do ANYTHING then we must throw 50% of the Iron Chariot Wiki false dilemma in the trash can.

I'm not abandoning any notion, I am placing the two parts of the claim together and pointing out it is impossible for these states to occur at the same time, omnipotence AND omniscience is illogical, (let alone the problems with each on it's own).

You are begging the question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html), an error of reasoning and a logical fallacy claiming that because your god has both these properties, then it must be true that these properties can exist together.

In other words, you are using an error in logic to try and prove that an omniscient and omnipotent god is logical.

It asserts that the verb "to know" and "All Powerful are mutually exclusive.

To claim that there is something an ALL powerful Being cannot do is Illogical.

To claim (as I do) that an All Powerful Being CAN do anything He wants IS logical.

Again, you are begging the question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html) here. You are the one saying that these properties are mutually exclusive, not me. You are asserting one side and saying therefore the other side is not an error in logic. You are simply claiming because your god has both properties because it is omnipotent, therefore it is logical without confronting both properties in an omniscient AND omnipotent being.

Can this omnipotent being create a stone it cannot lift? A problem so great it cannot solve it? Omnipotence itself is not a logical property.

But you must bring the properties together for this debate, not simply assert because a god can do anything, there is no problem with being omniscient as well as omnipotent.

I have clearly stated what the problem with omniscience is. Since this being knows everything, it is illogical to state for instance, it can do something it didn't expect, because it is all powerful. This would mean in doing so, it was not omniscient as it did not know of it.

It is a logical contradiction between the two properties.

Lion (IRC)
PS- Now you made me waste one of my posts!

Not really, you have wasted your posts pretty much from the start. Most everything you have said in the past you should have placed succinctly in your opening statement, instead you have openly admitted you have to try and 'persuade' people to your point of view.

That's a damning indictment on the quality of the 'logic' you are presenting isn't it?

I am using a mixture of persuading TOWARDS my proposition and persuading AGAINST my opponents position. Of course I am attacking the alleged paradox and proposing an alternative. Imagine a defense lawyer being told by the prosecution that any evidence that “someone else did it” is inadmissible.

The problem here Lion IRC is that you think you can sway people to your position, and you are not really attacking the paradox, you are trying to find a way around it as you obviously haven't really thought about the claims of your own god too much before. You have just taken it for granted. You are also using the only technique you know to defend your position, and that is to try and muddy what the other person is saying, not defend what you are claiming.

It’s like watching some bad actor playing Ceasar on stage giving some kinda over the top speech, prancing around and it’s really hard to understand what they are saying as it’s heavy Shakespearean-type language. But they think they are on top of the world.

Classic creationist mindset to be honest, it's not about logic or facts, it's about how many people you can sway to your position by making it appear to be valid. The Gish Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop) is the weapon of choice normally.

It's amusing to watch you attempt to use these tactics in something so clearly black and white, logic.

Logic should be obvious and independant of the need to sway someone to your opinion. There is no grey in it as you are trying to play. You stated this yourself.

Feeling a little out of your depth without being able to just sit and pick holes in a large body of evidence?

good.

What would God do if He wanted to experience the feeling of “surprise” He would take that magic wand of His and wave it.

Ahh yes, again, having to resort to a fallacy, a logical error. Again Begging the Question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html).

But really that is the only option you have isn't it, trying to convolute what is a clear, illogical claim regarding a god having both the properties of omniscience and omnipotence?

He has a magic wand and waves it?

LOL

Lion IRC

3rd June 2010, 02:32 PM

Post # 5

I say Omnipotence is “total ability”
Davo agrees

I provide a list of verbs all of which an Omnipotent Being LOGICALLY can do.
Does Davo challenge this LOGIC? – (the logic he asked me to bring forth in support of my proposition)

No he does not. He cannot. He dare not.

I say that there is nothing God is unable to do if He wishes.
Davo demurs. Davo suddenly says he needs to “ask God”. Suddenly we have ditched the inconvenient truth incorporated in the wiki and upon which the entire alleged “paradox” rests.

Davo is admitting that he really does not understand Gods Omnipotence. He concedes that he (and the person at Iron Chariot Wiki) have a LIMITED capacity to understand the VERY subject they claim….”must do this and cannot do that”.

And THAT’S my point. If you are going to ascribe to a conceptual being the ability to wave His magic wand and make ANYTHING happen it is perfectly logical that that Being CANNOT be restrained or compelled.

Knowing is just another verb God can do if He wants.

Davo doesn’t like the “woo” which “comes with the territory” where Gods Omnipotence and Omniscience are concerned. He appeared ready to throw in the towel in this debate when he said “I pretty much call the debate over.” So soon? So few words? So much….”you have to prove everything…I have to prove nothing…mods can you please stop Lion from using italics and make him answer me in a way I find acceptable…”

Well “woo” is EXACTLY what you asked for when YOU challenged me to a debate about the “ne plus ultra” of magic wands. You made the error of proposing a paradox exists – that’s YOUR baby fella. And it is an illogical baby.

You invented an Omnipotent God (“woo”, “woo”, and more “woo”) and then presumed to lay out the “rules” that God has to follow when it comes to the “Zen of knowledge” – the "Quantum Weirdness of knowledge”. The "Chaos Theory" of knowledge.

An all powerful God can know everything and an all knowing God has the power to do anything. Knowledge is POWER. Who says that?

John Locke, whom I regard as the founder of empiricism and natural opponent of most forms of dogmatism, was really bothered by metaphysics in most things – except for God. Why? Because logically, God is the only concept to which metaphysics is apt. He was troubled* by the “fiddling” done by the likes of Leibniz in relation to the natural world but he could not “argue the toss” empirically, in the philosophical matter of what a Divine all powerful being might be shown to do.

In other words you cannot argue with or about a magic wand. Much of what Locke writes about God affirms that, in his mind, God is “nominal” just as the topic of this debate is nominal. The nominal Being we are discussing can do anything and know anything or everything there is to know.

And God decides what there is "to know" - not wikipedia.

The nominal Gods magic wand consists in His “pleasure”. And it is the “nominal” God about Whom Davo and Lion are arguing.

“For men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business, they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed to be any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses.”* Locke

*See “The Sceptical Mind and The Liberal Constitution – Locke and the glorious revolution – Ian Ward’s Introduction to Critical Legal Theory
and John Locke. An Essay concerning Human Understanding and 2nd Treatise on Government

Even Locke would have conceded that metaphysics is the ONLY applicable discipline which could answer a question like…”Can God create a stone God cannot lift”? In metaphysics, all things are theoretically possible. God and metaphysics are like red wine and cheese. In metaphysics, God can know all things and God can completely destroy all things so there is nothing about which knowledge is needed - the tabula rasa.

Having shown that the definition of “to know” is not a concept so foolishly simple as to be summed up by the single word “omniscience”, I wanted this post to focus primarily on the theme now of Omnipotence. Power.

If Davo still insists that it is a simple concept, then all the Zen masters and “theory of knowledge” philosophy wizards like Abelard won’t help. Davo’s dogmatic approach to God’s use of knowledge would, I suspect bother Locke. It is also disingenuous given that he himself concedes…”I really wish I could go and ask God”.

So let us leave Davo back where he has been since the start of this debate and continue on regardless. Even if he feels a little impotent because Lion, (the one who is supposed to be doing all the proactive affirmative posting) is serving up more content than expected and some of it includes attacks on the logic of his position which he didn’t expect. Even if he feels ready to throw in the towel (call the debate over) because not ONE of his counter arguments does anything other than state what I already knew to be his position – he thinks Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually exclusive. He thinks knowledge and power can’t go hand in hand.

“In a time of turbulence and change, it is more true than ever that knowledge is power”
John F Kennedy (What? Turbulence and change? Not dogmatism?)

“Science investigates religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power religion gives man wisdom which is control.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. (NOMA anybody?)

“Knowledge comes by eyes always open and working hands; and there is no knowledge that is not power.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson (Eyes open – Observation. I wonder if the actual observation itself affects the outcome.)

“Knowledge is power.”
Francis Bacon (A fine Baconian principle!)

“Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family.”
Kofi Annan (What a shocking Ad Populam! – oh wait….I suppose the UN is the Zenith of ad pop)

How is it that such LOGICAL “authority figures” to so many people can think that knowledge can be used to empower. How could anyone dream up a concept of knowledge as manacles which compel an omniscient Being to conform to the subjective opinion of a wiki writer?

Let us consider POWER in mechanical terms and see if there might be some way Davo could unshackle it from Omniscience. I don’t think there are any LOGICAL grounds to think so but lets crash test the idea of POWER in non-philosophical terms – just to cover all the bases and keep Davo happy.

According to….(Dear God please help me find a non-wiki source)
…according to every mechanical engineering handbook I have read* power is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted. Force, distance, time.
Now this is interesting. Apparently, power is related to energy and time and distance. Look away now Davo. We are blasting off and headed for space. Space/time.
*Including "Belt Selection and Application for Engineers" - Wallace D. Erickson

You see there is an intricate connection between matter and energy not just in mechanical engineering but even deeper in physics and still deeper into quantum physics and still deeper again into metaphysics, thence onward to philosophy and soon we aren’t just talking about James Watt or torque or Reynolds numbers or Pascals or Newtons.
Power and energy – chaos theory – noise and light – space and time – singularities – information encoded in systems - DNA - random and non-random – which of these is information? How much time needs to pass between two events before they are no longer connected in the way Abelard would understand?

We are talking about time and energy and information. What does God have a LOT of?

How the HELL can you have omnipotence without omniscience?

They are the two most logically related ideas in the history of philosophy and the conceptual Being we are talking about can make space/time dissappear so that He has nothing to think about...if thats what He.......
...wishes.

Lion (IRC)
PS - Here is how an irresistable force can co-exist with an immovable object. Put on your whacky quantum weirdness aluminium helmets and let your omnipotent imagination run free. Look everybody. God just turned Himself into an in immovable rock. He made Himself "at one" with the thing He created.

davo

3rd June 2010, 05:33 PM

I provide a list of verbs all of which an Omnipotent Being LOGICALLY can do.

It's also a waste of time.

Does Davo challenge this LOGIC? – (the logic he asked me to bring forth in support of my proposition)

No he does not. He cannot. He dare not.

You are again using a Red Herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html) argument here. I don't doubt the concept that these coud be done even by just a powerful being, or by myself.

It's irrelevant to the actual topic of the claims of purity you put forward. Omniscience and Omnipotence.

It's just not logical that a being can be both these things. They contradict. I've explained how, but you won't approach the flaw in my argument you keep claiming. But really, claims is all you are used too.

I say that there is nothing God is unable to do if He wishes.

So you keep claiming, but I don't see any logic to the claim. Let alone the fact little old you is standing there claiming you know the properties of your supposedly omni-max god better than I.

Can he create a rock so large that he could not ever possibly lift it?

Can he make 1 + 1 = 3?

The nature of what you are claiming of your god is a paradox. a statement of logic that contradicts itself. ie: It is ILLOGICAL.

You use the term magic. Well magic may be all gooey and nice warm fuzzy feeling in your fairy tales, but it's not logical.

If it's not logical, what is it? illogical. You have said it yourself.

Davo demurs. Davo suddenly says he needs to “ask God”.

umm no, because your god as you defined it to me could not exist. I don't have to ask anything. Your claims are illogical.

While your god's promise of eternal life is very persuasive, the Papua New Guinean mud god, Pikkiwoki, is promising a pig and as many coconuts as you can carry. I even joined his facebook group.

Pikkiwoki is at least logical so my chances of getting it right out of millions of concepts of god is a little better than what you have presented.

Suddenly we have ditched the inconvenient truth incorporated in the wiki and upon which the entire alleged “paradox” rests.

huh? The paradox is quite clear. I used my own brain and put it forward to you as best I could. I went in depth to try and explain the facets of it. You won't even ATTEMPT to approach what I laid out very simply for you.

Why? Because you obviously can't.

The logic of my argument rests on the inherant contradiction of the properties you claim of your god. Your god is illogical, it is impossible.

All you have as you tried in your first post is attempt (yet another) logical fallacy of Appeal To Ridicule (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html)

Davo is admitting that he really does not understand Gods Omnipotence. He concedes that he (and the person at Iron Chariot Wiki) have a LIMITED capacity to understand the VERY subject they claim….”must do this and cannot do that”.

And THAT’S my point. If you are going to ascribe to a conceptual being the ability to wave His magic wand and make ANYTHING happen it is perfectly logical that that Being CANNOT be restrained or compelled.

I'm not claiming anything other than what you claim is illogical. It couldn't exist. I am not restraining it or compelling it anything. It's illogical your claims.

Let's make an assumption that an omnipotent being exists .. let's humour you and try and work on this logic.

1/ An omnipotent being can create any type of rock.
2/ There are no rocks too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift

whoa! fair enough, but this means an omnipotent being cannot create a rock too heavy to lift up, as there are no rocks too heavy for it to lift, it's a messy contradiction and .. illogical

it's contradictory and you haven't shown me how this is at all logical.

Here is what what your saying :

1/ An omnipotent being exists
2/ The omnipotent being can create any type of rock
3/ There are no rocks too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift
4/ The omnipotent being can create a rock too heavy for it to lift because it is omnipotent, but it can lift it because it's omnipotent

Now, number 4 is illogical ... can you spot it?? one each side of the comma, you might have to squint.

This is what you are saying in this debate. You might think using all your fancy name dropping and reading and big words can smother the logic and make this fact kinda just not show up .. but it aint working in reality.

Knowing is just another verb God can do if He wants.

Yea? so you say, but you both have no evidence whatsoever, and your claims of your god are simply illogical, so excuse me if I look sideways at you with a slightly raised eyebrow when you stand there all high and mighty claiming stuff that is impossible.

Davo doesn’t like the “woo” which “comes with the territory” where Gods Omnipotence and Omniscience are concerned.

You just claim it tho. I have cleary showed it is illogical.

He appeared ready to throw in the towel in this debate when he said “I pretty much call the debate over.” So soon? So few words?

meh

you know I wasn't throwing in the towel, I was stating the obvious, you got serious pwned. You are here for the duration, so ramp up the word spaghetti as much as you like, avoid the points I have made as much as you like. Your just one of many that don't think for themselves.

Well “woo” is EXACTLY what you asked for when YOU challenged me to a debate about the “ne plus ultra” of magic wands. You made the error of proposing a paradox exists – that’s YOUR baby fella. And it is an illogical baby.

LOL So how exactly is your god going with creating a pizza so big he couldn't possibly eat it? What about drinking so much beer he couldn't have another?

An all powerful God can know everything and an all knowing God has the power to do anything. Knowledge is POWER. Who says that?

Knowing what it is going to do tomorrow, can it do something it didn't already know instead?

Can an omnipotent being make some thing which it cannot then control?

John Locke, whom I regard as the founder of empiricism and natural opponent of most forms of dogmatism, was really bothered by metaphysics in most things – except for God. Why? Because logically, God is the only concept to which metaphysics is apt........

blah blah maybe if you drop names you can avoid what is being presented to you.. Appeal to Authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) .. and no actual logic to show for it. Just a reference to someone in 1600's.

The nominal Being we are discussing can do anything and know anything or everything there is to know.

You LOVE these constant claims with no evidence don't you? "I'll just claim it hurr durr"

For the umpteenth time you are using the Begging The Question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html) logical fallacy as your 'proof'

And God decides what there is "to know" - not wikipedia.

I'd like you to show me the evidence for your claims :) Begging The Question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html)

The nominal Gods magic wand consists in His “pleasure”. And it is the “nominal” God about Whom Davo and Lion are arguing.

Begging The Question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html)

conitinued ..

davo

3rd June 2010, 05:33 PM

Even Locke would have conceded that metaphysics is the ONLY applicable discipline which could answer a question like…”Can God create a stone God cannot lift”? In metaphysics, all things are theoretically possible. God and metaphysics are like red wine and cheese. In metaphysics, God can know all things and God can completely destroy all things so there is nothing about which knowledge is needed - the tabula rasa.

Seems like you are saying metaphysics means nothing is illogical as everything is possible :) ie: your god is not subject to logic.

If this is true, then even the best reasons for god's existence are only a matter of opinion. You cannot assert anything about a god that is not subject to logic, let alone the fact you seem to be yet again refuting yourself.
To claim your god is beyong logic means it is merely a hypothetical being with no logical support. All the assertions you make from 'this realm' mean nothing in a world with no logic.

There are plenty of arguments along these lines, bring it on, but if you are claiming that, you just lost the debate.

Having shown that the definition of “to know” is not a concept so foolishly simple as to be summed up by the single word “omniscience”, I wanted this post to focus primarily on the theme now of Omnipotence. Power.

If Davo still insists that it is a simple concept, then all the Zen masters and “theory of knowledge” philosophy wizards like Abelard won’t help. Davo’s dogmatic approach to God’s use of knowledge would, I suspect bother Locke. It is also disingenuous given that he himself concedes…”I really wish I could go and ask God”.

I think you are the one that has the simple concept of it. I explained thoroughly what it means to know all in my first post. Everything. Not only what is, but what could have been and every possibility along those paths. It also includes the experiential knowledge, like having experienced being something with absolutely no power and no omniscience.

But how would it 'get back'? If it laid a plan to come back, it would not have the true experiential knowledge of having been truly powerless and truly dumb.

There's heaps of problems with your claims. You think naming big names will get around the stark expression of what I am saying.

So let us leave Davo back where he has been since the start of this debate and continue on regardless. Even if he feels a little impotent because Lion, (the one who is supposed to be doing all the proactive affirmative posting) is serving up more content than expected and some of it includes attacks on the logic of his position which he didn’t expect.

lol mate, I am loving this more and more. This thread is epic :)

I expected more actually. I expected way more, but you don't seem to have thought about your claims really at all in the logical sphere.

Even if he feels ready to throw in the towel (call the debate over) because not ONE of his counter arguments does anything other than state what I already knew to be his position – he thinks Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually exclusive. He thinks knowledge and power can’t go hand in hand.

Well show us how it can logically do that. I have asked repetatively.

You seem to think knowing all and being all powerfull are gradiated levels of this 'being'. I'm realistic in the claim that when something is omniscient, it KNOWS ALL, and when something is omnipotent, it is ALL POWERFUL.

it is not logical for an omniscient being to do something it didn't already know it was going to do, regardless of how powerful it is. If it's powerful enough to do something it didn't already know it was going to do, it would not be omniscient.

“In a time of turbulence and change, it is more true than ever that knowledge is power”
John F Kennedy (What? Turbulence and change? Not dogmatism?)

“Science investigates religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power religion gives man wisdom which is control.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. (NOMA anybody?)

“Knowledge comes by eyes always open and working hands; and there is no knowledge that is not power.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson (Eyes open – Observation. I wonder if the actual observation itself affects the outcome.)

“Knowledge is power.”
Francis Bacon (A fine Baconian principle!)

“Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family.”
Kofi Annan (What a shocking Ad Populam! – oh wait….I suppose the UN is the Zenith of ad pop)

How is it that such LOGICAL “authority figures” to so many people can think that knowledge can be used to empower. How could anyone dream up a concept of knowledge as manacles which compel an omniscient Being to conform to the subjective opinion of a wiki writer?

Besides the Appeal to Authority fallacy method you are approaching the discussion with here, they are humans, we are talking about TOTAL knowledge of a supposedly omnipotent being. JFK, King etc etc was talking about gradiated knowledge, the build up of knowledge and specifically when dealing with war, famine, medical issues etc etc.

Can an omniscient being have the experiential knowledge of not being able to be omniscient?
What about the experiential knowledge of pure unadulterated malice, say the knowledge of exactly what it was to be Hitler?
What about the experiental knowledge of being absolutely powerless with no way back?
What about the experiential knowledge of a friend who is your equal?

All knowledge is all possibilities of all things that could possibly happen ever, this would mean the knowledge of the various differing paths a fly could have taken from every single atom distance it flies in a never ending chain of possibilities and everything in between, forever branching out in possibilities from there.

I don't think you really DO have an idea what omniscient means, it's a buzz word for you.

We are talking about time and energy and information. What does God have a LOT of?

How the HELL can you have omnipotence without omniscience?

So you are just refuting yourself yet again, what you just said above is that your omnipotent god could not forget.

They are the two most logically related ideas in the history of philosophy and the conceptual Being we are talking about can make space/time dissappear so that He has nothing to think about...if thats what He.......
...wishes.

Yea that's what you keep saying. lol

Lion (IRC)
PS - Here is how an irresistable force can co-exist with an immovable object. Put on your whacky quantum weirdness aluminium helmets and let your omnipotent imagination run free. Look everybody. God just turned Himself into an in immovable rock. He made Himself "at one" with the thing He created.

definitely would have to be a whacky hat.

Can god make a force that he could never control?

Can God create a rock so heavy that he will never be able to lift it?

the whole concept is illogical and your word play isn't really achieving much, cept logging you here for the future to look at :)

Lion IRC

4th June 2010, 02:21 PM

Post # 5
(no...make it last longer...I dont want to get banned as soon as its over)

*sigh*

I said Locke would have conceded that metaphysics is the ONLY applicable discipline which could answer a question like…”Can God create a stone God cannot lift”? In metaphysics, all things are theoretically possible. God and metaphysics go together like red wine and cheese. In metaphysics, God can know all things and God can completely destroy all things so there is nothing about which knowledge is needed - the tabula rasa.

To which Davo replied…

“Seems like you are saying metaphysics means nothing is illogical as everything is possible ie: your god is not subject to logic.”

No – I am saying (as was Locke) that in pure logic, you can conceive of a Being such as God – a magic wand is not illogical if you invent the words “magic wand” and use them in your dialectics.

This is the fundamental point Davo.

You don’t have to think God is real in order to conceive the logical proposition that “if God is all powerful He can do anything.”

If you contemplate whether God can make Himself appear non-existent, you must qualify whether your definition of God includes Omnipotence. And then you might qualify what you mean by “appear”. And then you might qualify “appear to whom?”

But if your starting premise (conception) is “God can do anything” (Omnipotent) then there is nothing that conceptual Being could do which is illogical. You devised the conceptual being that way yourself.

That, Davo, is why I was so happy to accept your challenge to debate the “ne plus ultra” of magic wands. You can’t win. I am convinced that in logic or dialectics nobody could win this argument in your place – well…except God of course. I bet He could win. He could play chess by Himself and win or lose or win or lose…..

(That reminds me of a chess anecdote about the visiting Grand Master who was playing an amateur old-timer at a local chess club who always dreamed of one day playing against a Grand Master. It was the old timer’s birthday and the GM thought he would graciously let the birthday boy – who wasn’t really a very strong player, win. The game went on for ages and ages and in spite of the GM’s best efforts to lose, the old boy refused to cooperate and finally resigned admitting that he could never beat a Grand Masters of chess.)

I’m so glad Davo said he is “…loving this more and more. This thread is epic…”

I thank him for accommodating me. He above everyone else at AFA so far, has made me feel the most welcome. I hope I am allowed to remain a guest here at AFA and we can have many more enjoyable discussions. (My new best friend - who struggles with the God concept.) :D

Davo poses still more questions about the conceptual Being proposed by his wiki source. Strange considering Davo is the one claiming to know what this conceptual being can and cannot do. It’s his baby. He conceived it. He has obviously spent nine months in contemplation of its gestation. He is the one asserting it has a birth defect (which I can’t even see)

Davo wants his baby to grow up just like any normal omnipotent Being. That’s reasonable. A concerned parent perhaps? Thinks there is something wrong with his baby? Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy? Hmmm. I wonder.

Davo wants to consult Doctor Lion IRC.

Will my baby grow up to have the experiential knowledge of not being able to be omniscient?
Yes – if He wants.

What if my baby wants the experiential knowledge of pure unadulterated malice, say the knowledge of exactly what it was to be Hitler?
Yes – if He wants.

What about the experiental knowledge of being absolutely powerless with no way back.
Yes – if He wants.

What about the experiential knowledge of a friend who is your equal?
Yes – if He wants.

I don't think you really DO have an idea what omniscient means, it's a buzz word for you.
Yes – if He wants. (God can even make me do what Davo wants)

Can my omnipotent baby make a force that he could never control?
Yes – if He wants.

Can my baby create a rock so heavy that he will never be able to lift it?
Yes – if He wants.

And so forth and so on..............

As this is my penultimate post (second last) I have a one final line of argument I would like to introduce

I have spoken on the matter that, in this debate, we are talking about an atheist conceptual Being to whom WE have ascribed the abilities.

I have touched on the theory of knowledge in philosophy – Zen, Abelard, Locke, memory, information, recollection, etc.

I have demonstrated that the most efficient argument is the shortest possible distance between two points and therefore, all I need do to prove my case “LOGICAL,” is to challenge the illogical basis of my opponents. This I have done by simply asking – “show me the verb which an ALL powerful Being cannot do”

I have attempted a quasi post mortem of the concept of power and even drilled down to the plain mechanical definition but alas we cannot avoid the quantum indivisibility of matter and energy.

Now for the money shot - Abstraction

A bit of pure sophistry. Aristotle! Is there an Aristotle in the house?

I would like an ancient Greek here to look at this rhetorical device and see if it qualifies as a method of fighting fire with fire. Because what the Iron Chariot wiki presents is mere sophistry it cannot surely object to the same treatment in reply. It is built on a DIY timber platform and of course the logical thing I attack it

Does the word “dust” mean to remove dust using a feather duster or does it mean to apply dust as when someone is searching for fingerprints?

When I say “left” do I mean “some are still remaining” or “some left and are longer remaining”?

Protium might “sanction” me and my participation in this forum but what does that mean? On Monday I am “sanctioned” and on Tuesday I am “sanctioned”. One prevents me from posting the other means I have his official blessing to use the PM function again.

Is Davo’s invitation to me to debate this topic a “quantum leap” into the unknown or just a “quantum” leap – a very small increment?

Davo is valiantly holding “fast” to the ugly little baby he found abandoned at Iron Chariot wiki but I think he should drop that illogical little creation and see how “fast” it falls. Because fast can mean moving fast and it can also mean fixed.

If the all knowing, all seeing God, is responsible for the universal “oversight” does that mean He would notice a typo in the univurse and that no one would have to point out His “oversight”?

You see, what we are arguing here is nothing more than what Davo wants a word to mean. And that would dilute the debate into an argument about linguistics and semantics.

But that’s not the debate Davo wants to win or lose is it? Altering the interpretation of a word so you can win an argument? Growling at anyone who suggests the word might have a broader application than than Davo wants?

Here’s the argument I want to win.

Is Davo brave enough to consider the paradox free from the artificial semantic meaning of the word “Omniscience” to which he is clinging so tight and with so much desperation that it is pitiful?

Can he let go of the one part of his false dilemma - either Omnipotence or Omniscience – and take on a conceptual Being whose Omniscience extends as far as the meaning which I claim is logical?

Is he really going to gamble ALL his poker chips on the hope that God’s Omniscience means what wiki says rather than what God says?

(Cont...)

Lion IRC

4th June 2010, 02:24 PM

(Cont...)

Here is my final point.

Humans can construct a paradoxical Being or a logical one.

A logical being would have the semantic form of Omniscience I advocate and an illogical being would have the type of Omnipotence in which there are some things God cannot do (as the paradox claims)

But what sort of hollow victory would that be in a debate? A punctuation error is not philosophy! Contranyms can be made of any word and we can play “cutsie” little semantic games back and forward – but that’s NOT philosophy!

Restricting the meaning of the verb “to know” so that you can claim some bingo word game prize holds no honor in the lofty world of Abelard and Locke and Plato and Rousseau.

Digging your heels in and “dogmatically” insisting that your conceptual God has a unique form of Omnipotence which prevents God from doing certain verbs is not an honorable contribution to the forward momentum of human thought.

It is a petty quibbling.

The all power Being who conceptually can do ANYTHING and who has the knowledge needed for this VERY ability is logical.

Of course I can modify the abilities of God “to know” and to “be able” and I can put him in a little straw puppet robe and make fun of the paradoxical shoes which I made him wear. And I can travel around the blogosphere saying “Look everybody” I made a little wiki doll and it has its very own internal contradiction."

The debate I wish to win fair and square is the one where Omniscience is the unlimited use of the verb “to know” and Omnipotence is the unlimited ability to use the verb “to know” any way God wishes.

If my opponent can only win this debate by forcing readers into a myopic and illogically restricted view of the theory of knowledge then he can keep his little wiki doll with its man-made handicap of not being able to do certain things that the real God of the infinite can and who does not need our semantic and pedantic approval.

Lion (IRC)

davo

4th June 2010, 06:08 PM

I am saying (as was Locke) that in pure logic, you can conceive of a Being such as God – a magic wand is not illogical if you invent the words “magic wand” and use them in your dialectics.So your down to arguing the 'magic wand' I see. Getting kinda embaressing really isn't it?

"A unicorn is not illogical! if you invent the word Unicorn and use them in your dialectics!"

Ok show us it spelt out in pure logic, rather than just claiming it is both without ANY evidence whatsover. Show us the evidence of your claims. At the moment I have continually put forward the paradoxes presented in logic, I have spelt out and numbered the logical progressions to try and get you to respond and show us logically how this is not a contradiction.

And here you are basically saying 'if I can think of it without it conflicting in my head, so long as I can concieve it, it is logical'

what utter tripe.

This is the fundamental point Davo.

You don’t have to think God is real in order to conceive the logical proposition that “if God is all powerful He can do anything.”You now seem to be saying this omniscient and omnipotent god is a metaphysical construct and as such logic does not apply, so long as Lion IRC can concieve of it, it must be logical.

Effectively you are just trying to win the debate by saying that this omniscient and omnipotent being is just a concept, and concepts are logical as we all have them .. so TA DAA!!

hurr durr the theist refutes his own god as a concept lol

I have refuted your claim simply, knowing what your god is going to do tomorrow (being omniscient), means it cannot change that, or it would not actually have been omniscient in the first place. Not being able to change it's future, means it would not be omnipotent. If it changed that 'immutable' future, it would not have been omniscient in the first place REPEAT (and round and round we go)

And btw I have read up on your claims, I just find that you have picked and chosen a concept that fits what you want to say, effectively "that god can do anything even the logically impossible, and since he can, therefore it is logical" Which is TOTALLY Begging the Question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html), but really you have been doing this all along. You are not arguing the logic of an omniscient and omnipotent god, you are just asserting everyone has to accept it.

In other words you just effectively assuming it is true in your assertion. It's circular reasoning, just like saying 'The bible is true because the bible says it's true.

Locke's concept of knowledge was refuted by Berkeley in 1710, Leibniz published one too in 1765 then on to Hume and scepticism.

Scientists have almost universally rejected Lockes concept of 'tabula rasa', a simple example is in the fact the brain is born with the ability to learn language.

I submit solid evidence that refutes the concepts of knowledge as presented by Locke and put forward by Lion IRC in medical evidence of the brain having knowledge from birth :

"The neocortical microcircuit as a tabula rasa.". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.. January 18, 2005
Kalisman N, Silberberg G, Markram H. - Department of Neurobiology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Isreal
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630093

"Specification of cerebral cortical areas.". Science. July 8, 1988.
Rakic P. - Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3291116

"Spontaneous and evoked synaptic rewiring in the neonatal neocortex.". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.. August 29, 2006
Le Bé JV, Markram H. - Brain Mind Institute, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16924105

Locke said that only a thinking thing, can give rise to a thinking thing. He stated that first he perceives himself and then works from there using a version of the principle of sufficient reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason) which is again Begging the Question (%22http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html"), that nothing cannot produce anything, then puts forward that there must be 'something' that has been around for eternity to stop the infinite regress and that something is god. he then claims this thing must be all powerful, without any reasoning built on the foundation of the existence of himself, but totally sidesteps the problem presented that the being need only be as powerful as it takes to have created the world. There is NO requirement even for his postulated god to be omnipotent, even in the scope of things at best the logic says it only needs to be of a certain power.

This is just like creationists which claim everything is so complex it requires a designer, so postulate an even more complex thing and just ASSERT that their thing (god) does not require a designer while the universe does.

But if your starting premise (conception) is “God can do anything” (Omnipotent) then there is nothing that conceptual Being could do which is illogical. You devised the conceptual being that way yourself.So your saying this being is a conceptual being, I don't disagree with you at all on that one. It's all in your head and you are just ignoring the logical problems those two properties present, and just claiming it is logical.

That, Davo, is why I was so happy to accept your challenge to debate the “ne plus ultra” of magic wands. You can’t win. I am convinced that in logic or dialectics nobody could win this argument in your place – well…except God of course. I bet He could win. He could play chess by Himself and win or lose or win or lose…..You have totally argued now that since your god is a conceptual being, it's ok that it can be a paradox.

LOL

I thank him for accommodating me. He above everyone else at AFA so far, has made me feel the most welcome. I hope I am allowed to remain a guest here at AFA and we can have many more enjoyable discussions. (My new best friend - who struggles with the God concept.)No problem. This thread will stand testament to your logic :)

However I wouldn't bet on staying here after this, we tend to value reason and logic, and you effectively just claim 'the magic man can do anything regardless' It gets tiring that level of inanity. You were given your chance on the board to represent your 'god' and that's more than anyone could ask. I must say, you didn't dissapoint ;)

Davo poses still more questions about the conceptual Being proposed by his wiki source. Strange considering Davo is the one claiming to know what this conceptual being can and cannot do. LOL It's not my wiki source. Have a look and search and you will find these issues people have thought about since before your god supposedly came to earth to kill himself, so that he could forgive people for what their ancestors did to an apple.

You are the one telling us what this thing can and can't do. I am just putting forward what is logically possible given the properties you define of your god. And it isn't logical, all you can end up doing is saying 'because I can conceive of it, it must be so'

Do you also believe in leprechauns? I hear they can just magically appear at the end of rainbows. I can conceive of it so it must be true?

Sorry, that methodoloy is not logic however you want to word it up as that.

Davo wants to consult Doctor Lion IRC.I don't think so, all you would do is pray (http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html) and conceive medical help rather than give it.

continued ...

davo

4th June 2010, 06:09 PM

Will my baby grow up to have the experiential knowledge of not being able to be omniscient?
Yes – if He wants.

What if my baby wants the experiential knowledge of pure unadulterated malice, say the knowledge of exactly what it was to be Hitler?
Yes – if He wants.

What about the experiental knowledge of being absolutely powerless with no way back.
Yes – if He wants.

What about the experiential knowledge of a friend who is your equal?
Yes – if He wants.

I don't think you really DO have an idea what omniscient means, it's a buzz word for you.
Yes – if He wants. (God can even make me do what Davo wants)

Can my omnipotent baby make a force that he could never control?
Yes – if He wants.

Can my baby create a rock so heavy that he will never be able to lift it?
Yes – if He wants.

And so forth and so on..............No see, there is a difference between logic and assertion. They are not the same thing. You just assert it.

This is where you are claiming that your god is omniscient, but only if he wants to be, which is a hell of a lot different than being omniscient.

I have clearly stated that knowledge includes experiential knowledge. If he has not been in the situation and has not done it, he is not omniscient

hurr durr whats so hard about that to understand?

I have demonstrated that the most efficient argument is the shortest possible distance between two points and therefore, all I need do to prove my case “LOGICAL,” is to challenge the illogical basis of my opponents. This I have done by simply asking – “show me the verb which an ALL powerful Being cannot do”We are talking about an omniscient and omnipotent being. You are simply stating that the omniscient part doesn't count as it's 'covered' by omnipotence.

Humans have the greatest power in the world to destroy all living things, but do we have the knowledge to create a simple one? (not yet)

Power does NOT mean knowledge. They are related but they are not the same thing.

I may know a bird is flying over my head, but I am powerless to do anything about it, oops it's gone too late!

You are the one claiming that these abilities, pure, and total in definition, can exist in one being logically. I've shown over and over again the same argument as to how this is simply impossible.

Now for the money shot - Abstraction
Lock who rejects all innate ideas, which you seem to love, has a problem right here now you mention it.
Abstraction is only possible if we have some innate faculty of recognizing resemblances.
Hume, went on later to posit resemblance as an innate "principle of association of ideas."

If the all knowing, all seeing God, is responsible for the universal “oversight” does that mean He would notice a typo in the univurse and that no one would have to point out His “oversight”?

You see, what we are arguing here is nothing more than what Davo wants a word to mean. And that would dilute the debate into an argument about linguistics and semantics.Oh I thought we were focussing on logic, which you haven't even put forward yet, all the paradox I have put forward which is just the tip of the iceberg, you are saying is just semantics and linguistics

But that’s not the debate Davo wants to win or lose is it? Altering the interpretation of a word so you can win an argument? Growling at anyone who suggests the word might have a broader application than than Davo wants?

Here’s the argument I want to win.

Is Davo brave enough to consider the paradox free from the artificial semantic meaning of the word “Omniscience” to which he is clinging so tight and with so much desperation that it is pitiful?What? Let go of what? I explained fully how omniscience means all there is to know, all there could be to know into the future, all the possibilities from every thing that ever happens and the branching out from there, the SUM OF ALL KNOWLEDGE.

What are you trying to make it mean? Omnipotence.

let's look at your quotes:

How the hell can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?

How the HELL can you have omnipotence without omniscience?

Both these seperate comments as ending points of 2 of your posts sum up your position.

See, if this thing can't have omnipotence without omniscience, it is not omnipotent. Omnipotent means for instance it could choose to be dumb (feeel the logic ..)

You contradict yourself all the time. None of it is logical however much you claim you just have to conceive of it and it's logical. Doesn't make sense sorry, you have gone around and around in loops in this debate.

Can he let go of the one part of his false dilemma - either Omnipotence or Omniscience – and take on a conceptual Being whose Omniscience extends as far as the meaning which I claim is logical?

Is he really going to gamble ALL his poker chips on the hope that God’s Omniscience means what wiki says rather than what God says?Begging the Question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html) again. You are also just asserting a proof that you could not have knowledge of, without being omniscient yourself. Does god tell you all about this stuff does he?

Restricting the meaning of the verb “to know” so that you can claim some bingo word game prize holds no honor in the lofty world of Abelard and Locke and Plato and Rousseau.for the umpteenth time, I am not restricting it. I have stated all the way thru knowledge means knowing EVERYTHING. I have gone to great lengths to explain that.

Digging your heels in and “dogmatically” insisting that your conceptual God has a unique form of Omnipotence which prevents God from doing certain verbs is not an honorable contribution to the forward momentum of human thought.Nah actually you're digging your heals in and saying 'My omniscience and my omnipotence can mean whatever I want and my o+o god is logical even tho it's illogical so nyah'

It is a petty quibbling.Nope it's called critical thinking, not trying to shovel everything into a box defined by dogma. Unchained reasoning.

The all power Being who conceptually can do ANYTHING and who has the knowledge needed for this VERY ability is logical.Ahh no .. not conceptually, but in reality. See that's the claim of omniscience and omnipotence as a logical god. It's not the knowledge needed, it's ALL KNOWLEDGE, or else it is not omniscient.

Of course I can modify the abilities of God “to know” and to “be able” and I can put him in a little straw puppet robe and make fun of the paradoxical shoes which I made him wear. And I can travel around the blogosphere saying “Look everybody” I made a little wiki doll and it has its very own internal contradiction."lol or you can do it claiming something totally illogical exists, jump on a board full of people that use their brains and try and tell them your magical man is logical hehehe

The debate I wish to win fair and square is the one where Omniscience is the unlimited use of the verb “to know” and Omnipotence is the unlimited ability to use the verb “to know” any way God wishes.I was wondering, how did this omniscient god get back from having the experiential knowledge of being a powerless ant?

If my opponent can only win this debate by forcing readers into a myopic and illogically restricted view of the theory of knowledge then he can keep his little wiki doll with its man-made handicap of not being able to do certain things that the real God of the infinite can and who does not need our semantic and pedantic approval.
Yea you keep saying wiki, but most all of my arguments bar one line in the debate have even referenced it, and that was only because you mentioned it to start, and I asked for an answer.

How did your god go with having the experiential knowledge of making a stone so large that he could never move it?

lol

Lion IRC

4th June 2010, 07:47 PM

I would like to thank Protium and Davo for allowing me to take part in a discussion on AFA.

Davo was a fine debating opponent and a true humanist for letting me put my side of the debate.

Next time me and Davo might pick a simpler topic to debate...like... perhaps ...oh I dont know...maybe...."Whether Jesus' humanity was a fraud - in which case His divinity would also be fraudulent and therefore, etc etc"

In this debate I wanted to show that the wiki paradox Davo was presenting was a "human construction" which defined God in a paradoxical way. I wanted to show that it is equally possible (for humans) to define God in a non-paradoxical way. A nil-all-draw if you like.

Naturally, I presented a subjective argument about my own human point of view in contrast to another HUMAN point of view about God. Fortunately, this debate was not about whose view was empirically verifiable. Simply, whether or not Davo can have HIS view of God - paradox. And I can have my point of view about God - logical.

If the reader walks away thinking it is a nil-all-draw I will have done better than I expected. I have a few peanut gallery posts I would like to pursue but thats about it from me.

As many of you know, the contest of ideas isnt necessarily about winning or losing or getting one single debating opponent to admit or concede some point. It is more likely to be about the one single person in the audience who never said anything or commented in the peanut gallery but who went home and in bed that night "thought more deeply" about the topic than they otherwise would have.

I recently finished re-reading Bryce Courtenay's The Power of One and it speaks loudly about having your mind for the "map" but your heart for the "will". Are we going in the right direction and are we "driven" to get there?
The Power of One! Mind and Heart. Omnipotence and Omniscience.

"Dear Peekay,
Here is the money you won. We showed that big gorilla who was boss. Small can beat big. But remember, you have to have a plan- like when I hit Jackhammer Schmit with the knock out punch when he thought I was down for the count Ha Ha. Remember always, first with the head, then with the heart! Without both, I'm telling you...plans are useless.
Your friend in boxing,
Hoppy Groenveld."

PK thinks about Herr Hitler and the "Lord" and Hoppy Groenveld and Mifro and Jack hammer Schmidt and the Zulu shaman Inkosi Inkosi Kasi and he sees them through innocent eyes, but ultimately, he has to decide his own world view independently of them.

Debates like these are just Davo's and Lion's world views and the reader can take it or leave it. The reader might even have a superior argument than both of us put together. But we ALL have to face life and death and bullies and "the journey" like PK. Alone with the Power of One.

Lion (IRC)

davo

4th June 2010, 08:37 PM

Thankyou Lion IRC for agreeing to the debate.

I think I adequately outlined specifically by the thrust of the arguments is the fact faith is purely faith. Lion also got to the point that he was presenting this O+O god as a metaphysical construct. I don't disagree at all that it is a construct.

Whereas Lion IRC takes the view that the paradox is created by man that contradicts his 'god', the critical thinker in me can recognise that it's in fact the other way around. God did not create man, man created god.

Theism that claims elements of a god based on scripture, whatever religion it is, relies on faith alone. There is a point that reality has to be circumvented to explain what is effectively mystical concepts that have had on the most part, thousands of years of 'evolution'.

As mankind progresses, 'apology' for the way that concepts held with regard gods progresses. We find religion takes radical changes to fit into the current scope of thought. This is why they are called apologists. Religion is consistantly working at making itself explainable, moreso with advancement of science.

Apologists claim the right to question bodies of evidence that are open to real critique of a scientific level, yet scream blue murder if they can't claim a 'magic wand' and rights in our societies above and beyond others based on that.
We see them sitting back trying to find some way to attack evidence or have it misconstrued, or muddy the argument and they have techniques to do this as well.

I think this is the simply hypocrisy.

Usually these same people are doing it as well, any simple search on the web can show the techniques of certain individuals that are active in spreading misinformation in the name of their faith. When it comes down to it, they don't have anything supporting their own position. When they are put on the spot over their claims, it becomes clear that they have to construct a large, tenous framework to try and make the position even logically possible.

I'm all for questioning science, that is how it WORKS, but with realistic and factual, research and evidence that contributes to the growing knowledge of mankind.

I'm also all for questioning beliefs and not ashamed of using the tools thousands of years have given us, that have made excessive contributions to the well being of all humankind.

So long as we have people that take a position and find any way to justify it as their method, that progression will be slowed.

I was going to post some stuff I had prepared here to 'hammer in the nails', with a collation of claims from Lion. I am realistic too that what has been presented on the boards is not really where he is coming from, I have seen his posts and discussions all over the web, but I am hoping he will actually think, call me stupid sigh. I'm not silly enough to not pick up on his 'technique'. But thats a standard apologist for you.

I await the next version of the myriad concepts of myriad gods that people put forward to me regularly with interest.

God B. Less