Lots of theists believe God can do anything yet don't believe he can commit suicide. Jesus was probably one of them and Descartes certainly was. You're the only one with the mental block about this.

Descartes: I am in agreement with that. It has been some years now since I realize how great Bartricks is at thinking, and how wise it is to agree with him. He like good truffle hunting pig. His nose to floor, sniffing out arguments. Gregory, not so much.

If you had even read the Meditations you would know that he says God cannot deceive

You didn't even get the number of meditations right, remember? You thought there were 5! He does not deny that God has the ability to lie, he just finds it inconceivable that he ever would.

But anyway, much as I love discussing Descartes with those apt to misunderstand virtually everything he says, the bottom line is that i think God can do anything, and no one has yet shown otherwise.

So I forgot there were 6? So. I don't read Descartes anymore. But you forget that Descartes says God cannot lie because he is perfect. His God is much closer to Aquinas's than yours.

In the Third medication Descartes says God has "omnipotence, omniscience," but also "immutability, eternality". So if God is perfect, unchanged, and eternal, he can't become less

"So we shall come to understand that necessary existence is contained in the idea of a supremely perfect being" Descartes

Again, Descartes is talking about what he can conceive of. And he does not mean that God lacks the power to do anything. That's precisely why he is associated with the view of omnipotence that I am defending

It would be disingenuous of me not to state up front that I find your writings entertaining & bizarrely fascinating. — EricH

Okay, now I'm waiting for the insult that inevitably follows such statements...

It's not merely the things you say, but that you state them with such certainty and conviction. — EricH

Yes, because I have good arguments for them and I know what I am doing.

Perhaps I've overlooked it, but I am not seeing anything in your posts that indicates anything resembling humility or acknowledging the possibility that you are mistaken. — EricH

Ah, there it is. Knew it was coming. Yeah, yeah, I'm a bad person and you're a saint. Does it show a lack of humility to believe that 3 x 14 = 42? No. You have to reflect on it a little bit, but once you've done so, you're justified in being pretty damn certain about it. Now, how much time have you spent thinking about the nature of reason? I've probably racked up about 15,000 hours (and that's a conservative estimate). So I'm pretty sure of myself, yes. But that's no vice when you've put the hours in. I'm justifiably sure of myself, as most of us are about 3 x 14 = 42

That out of the way, I understand your position that God is not bound by LNC - otherwise (s)he would not be all powerful. — EricH

Yes. So God is Reason, as that's how she wouldn't be bound by LNC or any other law.

Would you clarify what you mean by "God is Reason"? Is "Reason" simply an alias for "God"? I.e., could we copy & paste the word "Reason" for the word "God" in your writings without any loss of meaning? — EricH

The word 'God' does not mean 'Reason' anymore than water means H20. The word God denotes a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Reason denotes the source of all normative reasons.

It's just that the single source of all normative reasons - Reason - is a person, and that person will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, and thus will satisfy the definition of God.

"So we shall come to understand that necessary existence is contained in the idea of a supremely perfect being" Descartes — Gregory

Yes, but that doesn't mean that God lacks the ability to cease to exist, for he can cease to be perfect whenever he wants.

You don't really understand Descartes and what he's doing. He thinks God would give us a way of knowing he, God, exists. That he finds such a way then confirms that God exists. If God exists, there would be a proof of his existence. That is, there would be a way of being certain that he exists. You need to understand what he's saying with that in mind.

You say God is contingent. Descartes says he is necessary. You say God can change. Descartes says he is changeless and always exists (not "always existed"). You don't seem to have ever had a concept of God where he can do all things but not things against his nature. You go on about how God, if he is all powerful, can do a contradiction and kill himself, but nobody seems to think this is very insightful. It's like you have an itch in the brain over omnipotency. It's not as easy as you make it out to be

Again, you've put your interpretation of omnipotence in the mouth of Jesus and Descartes. Descartes arguments for God only make sense with a necessary being who "cannot deceive", as he says

Yes, but that doesn't mean that God lacks the ability to cease to exist, for he can cease to be perfect whenever he wants. — Bartricks

If God doesn't lack the ability to cease to exist, and in his infinite wisdom decides it's better not to exist anymore, then he won't be OO&O anymore. He will have returned to absolute divine infinite nothingness. From which there is no escape. Or is there? From his Omnipotence we can conclude this he can do, including his Omnisapience. From the perspective of his omnibenevolence it's completely understandable: to free humanity from his evil presence.

A while back I engaged in a conversation with someone who was clearly making a basic mistake in set theory and formal logic (what you call squiggles). I attempted to get him to understand his error by first gently asking him to clarify one of his formulas. We did a back and forth a few times and then I explained his error - and as well as pointing out where he could get more information on the topic. As this point I got an angry response - this person thought I was some sort of acolyte seeking knowing when in fact I was undercutting him.

I firmly believe that whenever possible ideas should be criticized - not people. I’m sort of a kumbaya kind of person. In my posts here (as well as in my personal life) I attempt to be as honest and open as possible without engaging in personal invective (OK - I draw the line at out and out racists or Nazis). But at the same time I want to be open and honest about my intentions - and there is no way I could do that with you without coming across as somewhat insulting.

It is obvious that you are very well read and intelligent. If I wanted clarification regarding some fine detail about Anselm’s ontological argument, I would consider you to be as good an authority as anyone out here. And based on your posts, I do not consider you to be a bad person or some sort of troll. Very strange? Yes indeed! Bad/evil? No.

I am trying to understand how you think. We are not going to agree on any major points, and this does not bother me (as it seems to bother many other folks out here). I do not feel personally threatened by your ideas.

- - - - - - -

All that said, I’d like to get back to my question, as I did not follow your answer. I'll try re-phrasing my question.

“God is Reason”. To my way of thinking, this sentence equates the words God & Reason and implies that they can be used interchangeably.. So, for example, here are the last 2 sentences in your response to me:

Reason denotes the source of all normative reasons.

It's just that the single source of all normative reasons - Reason - is a person, and that person will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, and thus will satisfy the definition of God. — Bartricks

So if God is Reason, would it be equally correct to swap the words God & Reason in these sentences like this:

God denotes the source of all normative reasons.

It's just that the single source of all normative reasons - God - is a person, and that person will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, and thus will satisfy the definition of Reason.

I.e., what is the context in which you use "God" vs. "Reason"

It's a nonsense topic!

I agree with boagle. First, one must assume that there is such a thing as God. And if we decide that there is, then we must imagine the powers that he/she might possess. It is truly a nonsense topic based of speculation and imagination. Since nothing may be proven, it all comes down to belief and belief itself is simply a matter of opinion. For those whom believe, all the power to you and for those whom don’t, you’ll be all dressed up with no place to go on your funeral.

An omnipotent being is free to do anything, including cease to exist or ceasing to be omnipotent. Obviously. There's no problem in this. Having the ability to do something does not mean one is doing it or is fated to do it.

Reason and God denote the same person - namely, a person who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But that does not mean that the words mean the same thing such that one could use them interchangeably (although if it is understood that both denote the same person, then I suppose they could be).

Let's say I am the richest person in the bar, but the person I am drinking with does not know this. They just think I am Bartricks. They see that I have finished my drink and want another. They know that Bartricks wants another drink. Do they know that the richest person in the bar wants another drink? No. If you asked them 'does Bartricks want another drink?' they would say 'yes'. If you asked them 'does the richest person in the bar want another drink?' they'd say 'I don't know'.

Reason is the name for the source of all (normative) reasons. That's what it denotes. Most people don't realize it's a person. It is and this can be discovered easily enough. But there you go. Once one understands that Reason is a person, what we say about Reason makes sense (listen to Reason, follow Reason, the imperatives of Reason and so on).

God is the name of a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Reason will have those qualities. Thus Reason is God.

To go back to my analogy with myself, imagine that the person who owns the goldmine is, by virtue of this, the richest person in the bar, for that's the most valuable asset in these parts. The person I am drinking with does not know that the person who owns the goldmine is, by virtue of this, the richest person in the bar (for she does not know it is the most valuable asset in these parts). But she does know I own the goldmine. Does she know that the richest person in the bar wants a drink? No, she knows that Bartricks - the man who owns the local goldmine - wants a drink.

Similarly then, many people know that Reason wants them to do this and believe that. And many people also know that God is a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Do they know that it is God who wants them to do this or believe that? No, not necessarily - not unless they realize that Reason is a person and that the person of Reason would have the attributes constitutive of being God.

Likewise, many of those who know that Reason wants them to do this and believe that, also believe that God wants them to do this and believe that. Do they know that Reason and God are one and the same person? No. Just as my drinking partner may know that the richest person in the bar wants a drink - someone has told them - and know as well that I want a drink, yet not realize that myself and the richest person in the bar are one and the same person.

An omnipotent being is free to do anything, including cease to exist or ceasing to be omnipotent. Obviously. — Bartricks

False. That doesn't logically follow.

I got more quotes from Descartes:

"When we attend to immense power of this being, we shall be unable to think of its existence as possible without also recognizing that it can exist by its own power; and we shall infer from this that this being does really exist and has existed from eternity, since it is quite evident by the natural light that what can exist by its own power always exists. So we shall come to understand that necessary existence is contained in the idea of a supremely perfect being"

"For what is more manifest than the fact that the supreme being exists, or that God, to whose essence alone existence belongs, exists?"

"Possible or contingent existence is contained in the concept of a limited thing, whereas necessary and perfect existence is contained in the concept of a supremely perfect being"

At least have the humility of admitting when you are proven wrong. As for God, I don't think you've yet understood what the word means. God is not a super alien

You don't understand Descartes. Why do you think virtually all philosophers take Descartes to be one of the main representatives of the view that God can do absolutely anything?
There's what we can conceive of, and there's what God can do.

A necessary being can do anything except kill himself or go against his nature. Those "actions" are not real possibilities. A rock God cannot pick up doesn't mean anything.

What a wordy response. You could have conveyed the exact same information with your first paragraph plus one more sentence.

Reason and God denote the same person - namely, a person who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But that does not mean that the words mean the same thing such that one could use them interchangeably (although if it is understood that both denote the same person, then I suppose they could be).

So the use of “God” vs “Reason” is context dependent. — Bartricks

I added in that last sentence boldface. Much simpler and to the point, yes?

Now there’s nothing wrong with your analogies, it's just that they're unnecessary to convey the point.

So why do I start off by saying this? Because it highlights the fact that there is almost no common language between the two of us. All religious writing reads to me like some form of poetry.

“The moon was a ghostly galleon”

Of course we know that the moon isn’t really a ghostly gallon, we recognize that this is poetry. Is it great poetry? I dunno - but it certainly is memorable.

So once you say that God can lift the un-liftable stone? You are speaking poetically. God is not bound by LNC but we frail human beings are.

And just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with religious writing per se. There are some great stories and beautiful writing in the Bible. And when you say:

God is a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent — Bartricks

I can see how for some people this might be a beautiful image.

I'll stop here. Regardless of anything else I might say, I can reasonably predict that you will reject this line of reasoning and that I will get a very lengthy response. And that’s OK too. I do have one request: in your response, would you please answer me this:

If all the things you are saying are correct? How does this affect my life? Should I sell all my worldly possessions and become a hermit? Should I spend all my money on fast women and booze? Should I take up tap dancing?

And what a tedious and ungrateful response from you. I always find that those who enjoy talking about how nice they are - as you did in that previous self congratulatory tedium fest - are the most unpleasant of all. Needless to say, I read no further. Buddhist.

I got more quotes from Descartes: — Gregory

Have you noticed Bart does not use quotes? Nor any other citations?

Yes. And since he thinks God can do contradictions, maybe his God has made you and I right in these discussions and given him no truth. He would have no way to know. Not only is he a relativist, but he has an all powerful enforcer of contradictions behind everything. So I don't know why he bothers to even get on this forum

Yes. And since he thinks God can do contradictions, maybe his God has made you and I right in these discussions and given him no truth. He would have no way to know. Not only is he a relativist, but he has an all powerful enforcer of contradictions behind everything. So I don't know why he bothers to even get on this forum

So I don't know why he bothers to even get on this forum — Gregory

That's obvious - for attention.

Any problem that cannot be solved by tap dancing is not worth solving. That's Rogers-Astaire's first law. The second law is that anything you can do I can do better only in heels and backwards.

'Could' doesn't mean 'has'. 'Always' doesn't mean 'necessarily' and so on.

Like I say, you do not understand Descartes. In the meditations he is talking about himself and what he can conceive of, and thus he is not talking, strictly speaking, about what is absolutely possible (for that one finds oneself unable to conceive of something is not proof of its impossibility).

If you read his replies to objections, in particular his replies to the sixth set, then you'll find him expressing the view I and others attribute to him. (It's also contained in private correspondence with Mersenne).

God is the name of a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Reason will have those qualities. Thus Reason is God. — Bartricks

Jeffrey is the name of a person who has red hair.
Henry has those qualities.
Thus Jeffrey is Henry.