I am stating that there is something God cannot do, as you admit. That is: Remain God while not having one of the Os. He cannot do that. There is a thing he cannot do. — khaled

That line of reasoning will not work with Bart, since his version of God is not bound by LNC. Bart's God can lift the un-liftable stone and create a four sided triangle. So Bart's God can simultaneously divest himself of all of his Os - and yet still have them.

At least that's my understanding.

If God's laws and his free will are the same thing, then he is not bound by anything. Illogical things, like creating a square triangle and destroying himself, aren't really possibilities for him because he can do infinite things and all that's that *can be done*

As for hell, we have to distinguish between reason and theology. The idea of predestination comes from the Bible. Read Romans 9. That lays it out. It really relates to the whole prophecy thing. If God knows our choices before we make them, then he has control over them. Paul, Aquinas, Augustine all say this. Augustine even said unbaptized infants go to hell.

But if we are talking from philosophy alone, a good God might would allow babies to suffer so that they can latter, in this life or the next, enact a moral choice about the suffering and by this grow spiritually.

That’s what I thought too but he said God can’t divest himself while remaining God himself.

Just shows he doesn’t understand his own bullshit

As God is not a legitimate topic for science because it is unfalsifiable, so to I think philosophy should stop treading water with an object of the human imagination. The topic itself is absurd.

What does science have to do with philosophy or conversely?
According to your logic we should dismiss all scientific theories because that's "human imagination"

Maybe you don't know but without philosophy, scientists would probably never come to idea called "God's particle"

Yes, you have a point, we need to define our terms. Philosophy created Science, there is a similar relation between myth and ritual. Myth is the story, ritual is the story enacted, so too, philosophy is the story, science is the story enacted. Differing processes of trying to relate knowledge/understanding to replace ignorance or bewilderment, to give an orientation. I need to give defining our terms a bit more thought, if you wish to kick it off with your thoughts feel free.

Does an atom have free will?

What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world. — Albert Einstein

Vide Anthropic Principle.

There's only one world that's possible. All other worlds are impossible.

There's only one world in which life is possible. All other worlds can't support life.

This world is the only possible world and also it's the only world in which (intelligent) life is possible.

Premise 1: some things are pious while others are sin.
Premise 2: God decides which is pious or not because he is all knowing. — Vanbrainstorm

I believe that you should include a few very important premises before #2: that God exists and is so and so and can do this and that, etc. Or, if he doesn't really exist, you must assume that he does, otherwise you have no "game". But I can overlook this because there are more important things: the "traps" or inconsistencies in these two introductory lines of your description:

1) If God "is all knowing", he will never have to decide about anything because he knows a priori what is right or wrong, good or bad, pious or sin, etc. ("Decide" means arrive to a result or select among possible options about something after consideration and God would never need to do that.)

2) How could anyone know what God considers as right or wrong, good or bad, pious or sin? How could anyone know the will of God?

3) If you assume that God is omniscient, then most probably you also assume that he is omnipotent, isn't that so? Does then "free will" have any meaning for him, since he is assumed to always act at his own discretion?

So, according to my opinion, and I am sorry to say that, this topic is built on quicksand. It has no foundations, if no meaning at all.

God's omnipotent i.e. God can/does (?) (do) whatever He wants. Thus have I blown the lid off the (evil) nexus betwixt power & free will.

God's omnipotent i.e. God can/does (?) (do) whatever He wants. Thus have I blown the lid off the (evil) nexus betwixt power & free will. — Agent Smith

Is "God" free to commit suicide?

Can "God" cease being "God"?

The fact of randomness (e.g. vacuum fluctations) precludes – negates – "theism", no?

Is "God" free to commit suicide?

Can "God" cease being "God"? — 180 Proof

Furthermore of randomness, I think those questions can be related to human weakness in a sense of debating about the worthy of life. Religious and theists tend to say that "Men is made of God's image" but paradoxically, we as men, can only truly debate about "ceasing" "suicide", etc... Because God is supposed to be upon all of these "weaknesses" and "sins"
It even sounds contradictory.

Is "God" free to commit suicide? — 180 Proof

I don't see why not!

Can "God" cease being "God"? — 180 Proof

Here too, I foresee no difficulty.

As an omnipotent being, God's capable of anything! Now, why does that give me the creeps?

Anyway, being all-powerful the word "impossible" is not to be found in God's lexicon. That's what I think anyway.

The fact of randomness (e.g. vacuum fluctations) precludes – negates – "theism", no? — 180 Proof

I'm not a theist though at times I do $\downarrow$



I guess I'm confused, but it doesn't bother me too much.

Yes, the question asked admits of a straightforward answer: yes, God has free will.

God is morally perfect. If he lacked free will, then he would not be morally perfect, for then he would not be morally responsible for being morally perfect. So the question is akin to "does a bachelor lack a wife?"

And God's possession of free will generates no puzzles. Is God free to commit suicide? Yes - he wouldn't be free if he couldn't. Is he free to make a rock too heavy for him to lift? Yes. Is God free to cease to be God? Yes. And so on. To any "Is God free to..." the answer is 'yes'.

Almost invariably, those who think there are puzzles here are just confused.

Is he free to make a rock too heavy for him to lift? Yes. — Bartricks

Is he free to lift that rock?

No and yes. No, if he has decided to stop being omnipotent (and creating that rock was his method). Yes, if he has decided to create it and to continue being omnipotent.

Bachelors are unmarried, yes?

Can bachelors get married?

Not and remain bachelors. But a person who is a bachelor can get married, it is just that afterwards he'll no longer be a bachelor.

An omnipotent person can create a rock to heavy for himself to lift. He will no longer be omnipotent if he does that. But he can do that.

Although as God has the power to do anything, God can, in fact, both make a stone too heavy for him to lift and then lift it, for God has the power to make contradictions true. But God can also, if he so wishes, create rock too heavy for himself to lift, and be unable to lift it. For God has the power to stop being God whenever he wants. He wouldn't be omnipotent if he was stuck being God, would he?

Yes, if he has decided to create it and to continue being omnipotent. — Bartricks

So god creates a rock so heavy he can't lift it?Then god lifts that rock?

So god creates a rock so heavy he can't lift it?Then god lifts that rock? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, that is one possibility for God. God can make it the case that he is unable to do something he is able to do.

That's a contradiction. And contradictions are currently false. That is, if you are unable to do something, you are not also able to do it. However, God can do anything and thus God can make a contradiction true.

Note: God can also make a rock too heavy for him to lift and be unable to lift it. He would not be God after having done so. But that's not a problem, for God has the power to divest himself of power.

So, there are at least two options available to God in respect of the rock - he can create a rock too heavy for him to lift and thereby render himself no longer God. Or, alternatively, he could create a true contradiction by creating a rock too heavy for him to lift and yet retain the ability to lift it.

Neither are problematic.

Note: God can also make a rock too heavy for him to lift and be unable to lift it. He would not be God after having done so. But that's not a problem, for God has the power to divest himself of power. — Bartricks

He divests himself of power so that he's no longer god and therefore no longer omnipotent? Can he become god again? How does he become god if he isn't omnipotent.

Also, while god isn't god, what is he?

Most importantly: what makes you think you know so much about god?

He divests himself of power so that he's no longer god and therefore no longer omnipotent? Can he become god again? How does he become god if he isn't omnipotent. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, an omnipotent being can divest itself of power - so, it can, if it so wishes, cease to be omnipotent.

Why do you think an omnipotent being can't do this? It's obvious! Even little old me can divest himself of some power if he wants to. Do you think an omnipotent being is unable to do things even i can do?? What are you working with?

Can a formerly omnipotent being become omnipotent again? Yes, I think so. Do you think not? Why? You seem frightfully confused. Can you become less powerful than you currently are? Yes. Can you become less powerful and then regain the power you divested yourself of? Yes. You're seeing problems where there are none. I had a watch on my wrist a moment ago. So a moment ago I was able to tell the time just by looking at my wrist. But I took my watch off. And so now I am unable to tell the time just by looking at my wrist. Can I regain that ability? Yes. How? I could go and put my watch back on.

What are you having trouble with? Note too, if God ceases to be omnipotent, he would not thereby cease to be omniscient. So he'd know how to regain the omnipotence he's divested himself of, wouldn't he?

Also, while god isn't god, what is he? — ZzzoneiroCosm

What sort of a question is that? A person. A person who isn't omnipotent. Dur.

Most importantly: what makes you think you know so much about god? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Reasoning. Try it.

Let me help you: an omnipotent being is able to do anything.

If someone is able to do anything, are they able to divest themselves of some power?

Yes. Why? Because...if...they...couldn't...do....that....there....would....be....something....they....could....not.....do.

I guess I'm confused, but it doesn't bother me too much. — Agent Smith

The most charitable definition of "omnipotence" I've found is this: the ability of (a) being to do anything that is not impossible, or self-contradictory, to do instantly (i.e. just by thinking) and / or which no other being can do. So "no", (an) "omnipotent" being cannot make something "too heavy" for it to move if that something is moveable; it can, however, instantly move (with a thought) anything which is moveable.

However, does "omnipotence" include the ability 'to will what it wills'? (Schopenhauer) Does such (a) being even need 'to will' at all? By definition (above), the "omnipotent" cannot lack any thing and, therefore, 'willing' doesn't function as we understand 'willing' – except, perhaps, as a gratuitous anthropomorphism (i.e. as mere superstition).

Anyway, "omnipotence" conceived of this way, "God" (so attributed) is as categorically unworthy of worship as gravity. By contrast, the "God of Abraham", for instance, is merely an ultra-technologically advanced extraterrestrial compared to humanity – superhuman, not supernatural – which, on that account, is not worthy of being worshipped either, just as humanity is not worthy of being worshipped by insects. Is any "entity" worthy of worship? What would make any "entity" worthy of being worshipped by any other "entity"? What adaptable, indispensible, function does "worship" even serve – other than as ritualized "terror management" (E. Becker)? :eyes: :pray: :mask:

You seem frightfully confused. — Bartricks

You sound preposterous to me - just truly ludicrously magnificently irrevocably confused. Enjoy!

Reasoning. Try it.

Let me help you: an omnipotent being is able to do anything.

If someone is able to do anything, are they able to divest themselves of some power?

Yes. Why? Because...if...they...couldn't...do....that....there....would....be....something....they....could....not.....do. — Bartricks

What sort of a question is that? A person. A person who isn't omnipotent. Dur. — Bartricks

I can only hope you're eight years old. What have you done to your mind and to your character, my friend?

You sound preposterous to me - just truly ludicrously magnificently irrevocably confused. Enjoy! — ZzzoneiroCosm

That is how the wise seem to the ignorant. The average peon does not know how to distinguish between a diamond and paste.

If I am confused, locate the point of confusion.

I know exactly in what manner you are confused. This is how you think: bachelors are, by definition, unmarried. Therefore, a bachelor is incapable of having a wife. Should a bachelor be asked by a woman for his hand in marriage, the bachelor will have to reply "no, for I am a bachelor, and bachelors are by definition unmarried, and thus much though I would love to marry you, I cannot, for I lack the ability to do so. Do you see?"

That's how you think about God and God's omnipotence, is it not? You think "God is by definition omnipotent. But were God to create a stone that he could not lift, then there would be something he would be unable to do. Yet God is by definition omnipotent. So, were someone to ask God to create a stone too heavy for him to lift, he would have to reply "no, for I am God, and God is by definition omnipotent and thus much though I would love to create a rock too heavy for me to lift, I cannot, for I lack the ability to do so - I am condemned to be all-powerful by the power of a word. Do you see?"

That's how you reason. And it's bad. Really bad.

Now, given that you are hoping I am 8, take me to school and explain to little snotty Bartricks what stops God from creating a stone too heavy for him to lift?

That is how the wise seem to the ignorant. — Bartricks

The wise, I imagine, are a smidge less pompous.

I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation.

God has free will in the same way we do. All the subjective claims of theistic god in terms of morality allude to a moral agency. That's why the whole thing is ridiculous. He's indistinguishable from your dead great great great grandparent, and no one really listens to their parents anyway.

You think that reply was not pompous? Self awareness: zero. Anyway, enjoy mooing with the other unqualified farmyard animals.

I quote Khaled. He has said this on page 2 of this thread. When Khaled refers to "it", Khaled means Bartricks.

↪GraveItty ↪SolarWind Don't engage it. Among other ridiculous claims, it believes that life on Earth is hell where the wicked are sentenced for punishment and that whatever happens to you here, you deserve it. It also believes that if you disagree with it its necessarily because you lack expertise, and goes around asking for qualifications without presenting any on its part. It also can't see the irony here:

When reality is at home?
— GraveItty

You can't answer a question with a question, can you?
— Bartricks

Engaging it is reserved for masochists. When you begin to get anywhere it will retreat to "dunning kruger" or "this is how it is present to my reason" but it will take you 70 posts to get to that point.

The only clever things that come out of its mouth are ad homs. Which I have to say are top notch. — khaled

The most charitable definition of "omnipotence" I've found is this: the ability of (a) being to do anything that is not impossible, or self-contradictory, to do instantly (i.e. just by thinking) and / or which no other being can do. — 180 Proof

Displays the utmost clarity! :up:

If I have any issues, it's that the definition is human, too human. Just to be clear, I'm ok with that.

However, does "omnipotence" include the ability 'to will what it wills'? (Schopenhauer) Does such (a) being even need 'to will' at all? By definition (above), the "omnipotent" cannot lack any thing and, therefore, 'willing' doesn't function as we understand 'willing' – except, perhaps, as a gratuitous [1]anthropomorphism (i.e. as mere superstition). — 180 Proof

A nuance that's beyond my ken.

[1]Human, too human!

Anyway, "omnipotence" conceived of this way, "God" (so attributed) is as categorically unworthy of worship as gravity. By contrast, the "God of Abraham", for instance, is merely an ultra-technologically advanced extraterrestrial compared to humanity – superhuman, not supernatural – which, on that account, is not worthy of being worshipped either, just as humanity is not worthy of being worshipped by insects. Is any "entity" worthy of worship? What would make any "entity" worthy of being worshipped by any other "entity"? What adaptable, indispensible, function does "worship" even serve – other than as ritualized "terror management" (E. Becker)? :eyes: :pray: :mask: — 180 Proof

Awesome! Just curious, what is, to you, worthy of worship? Good guys only get a pat on the back and to kings, we kneel.

Thanks. :smile:

Ad hominem. It's all you do. Just 'Bartricks is mean, therefore his arguments fail' with a big dollop of odious condescension for good measure. Total inability to distinguish between the argument and the arguer.
Now, I can assure you that God can create a stone too heavy for him to lift, as I explained. Indeed, I have trouble understanding how anyone can think otherwise. What thoughts lead to it? What dumb inferences might make someone think God couldn't do such thing? "God can do anything, therefore he can't do this". I think if the manifestly contradictory nature of that does not scream out to you, then you really are not cut out for philosophy , just as one is not cut out for painting if one paints with the pointy end rather than the bristly one.