Childishness — ZzzoneiroCosm

Oh, so you don't use 'God' to denote a potato? Okay - what do you use it to mean? Do you use it to mean what philosophers of religion use it to denote, namely an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person? Or do you just not have a clue what you're saying about anything but are not letting that stop you?

I agree with Einstein: "Spinoza's God" (maybe!) As I've recently replied to you ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

Only an "omnibenevolent" deity seems worthy of worship — 180 Proof

What about the fact that at the human level, we worship only the powerful: many so-called god-kings were a far cry from being saints, more sinners they were, and yet people worshipped them as gods.

Perhaps, god-kings were a thing when polytheism was all the rage. In polytheism, goodness was secondary to power as an attribute of divinity.

Do you use it to mean what philosophers of religion use it to denote, namely an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person? — Bartricks

This is a ridiculously ignorant assertion and the end of this exchange.

Arrogant ignorance.

Take care.

This is a ridiculously ignorant assertion and the end of this exchange. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No, it is an accurate description of what people you've never read or thought about are using the term to mean. And this is the end of this exchange. I grade your side of it F.

Hey, @Bartricks, just out of curiosity, if God can do anything, can he score a goal in tennis?

Or can he score a hundred runs in Chess?

What about a home run in Poker?

What about the fact that at the human level, we worship only the powerful... — Agent Smith

So "we worship only" the unworthy – ergo the world we've made for ourselvse these last dozen or so millennia. :mask:

This thread is such a waste of energy.

What color is God's public hair? Or does he wax.

I think Bartricks saw one too many George Burns movies.

So "we worship only" the unworthy – ergo the world we've made for ourselvse these last dozen or so millennia. :mask: — 180 Proof

Just out of curiosity, how did an imaginary friend (God) become his worshipful (the Lord)?

A transition from just a companion who we can rely on and converse with to a master who dictates our fate and who we have to kneel to and placate/supplicate. What, in your opinion, brought that about?

Magical thinking :sparkle: :point:

Can god castle during a game of drafts?

Can god castle during a game of drafts? — Banno

:rofl: Yes, a drafty castle.

God can do anything, so he can castle in a game of chess, after moving his king, but so it is not cheating...

What other impossible things could he do?

He could hit a six in golf.

I say, excellent piece of prose. Very illuminating.

So it basically boils down to our insecurities; natural theology (the rational arm of religion) is simply us trying to rationalize what is, all said and done, nothing more than wishful thinking.

A [1]man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason. — J. P. Morgan

[1] All males, according to embryology, start off as females; it's only later during gestation that males make the switch from the phenotypic default (female) to males (dick & balls).

In short, that God is a He is not at all a case of gender bias; it actually reflects our femininity. :chin:

God cannot create such a stone. But this is not a limitation on his power because "a stone that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being" is a logical contradiction, a non-thing. Just like an unmarried bachelor or a square circle. Speaking about these things is essentially speaking gibberish because they are non-things. And so not being able to create the stone, or create a square circle is no limitation, because they are not even things. They are non-things.

Hope this was helpful!

So it basically boils down to our insecurities; natural theology (the rational arm of religion) is simply us trying to rationalize what is, all said and done, nothing more than wishful thinking — Agent Smith

Yes. As I say

"God" is an anxiety (like death), not an entity. — 180 Proof

:up:

God" is an anxiety (like death), not an entity. — 180 Proof

:rofl: I've seen God then, I suffer from an anxiety disorder.

Hey, Bartricks, just out of curiosity, if God can do anything, can he score a goal in tennis?

Or can he score a hundred runs in Chess?

What about a home run in Poker? — Banno

Oi Banno, yes, he can do all of those things.

Can you grasp the difference between being able to do something and doing it? God can. The average 7 year old can. Can you? And if you can grasp it, will you kindly do so.

God cannot create such a stone. — SwampMan

Why not?

But this is not a limitation on his power because "a stone that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being" is a logical contradiction, a non-thing. — SwampMan

There is no logical contradiction unless you are assuming God is incapable of ceasing to be omnipotent And why on earth would you assume that? I mean that is a contradiction! An omnipotent person who is unable to cease to be omnipotent is 'not' omnipotent.

An omnipotent person is omnipotent at t1. And at t1 he can create a stone too heavy for him to lift. That's an 'ability', note. To be 'able' to do something at t1 does not mean one has done it at t1.

At t2 he exercises that ability and makes a stone too heavy for him to lift. At this point he has ceased to be omnipotent - indeed, that's what he had to do in order to make the stone. He made a stone too heavy for him to lift 'by' ceasing to be omnipotent.

At t2, then, he is not omnipotent and there is a stone he cannot lift.

So, God can make a stone too heavy for him to lift. That is God can make himself not be God. He wouldn't be God otherwise! If he's incapable of ceasing to be God, he is not God.

Like, it seems, everyone else here, you are reasoning like this:

Mike is a bachelor. Can Mike take a wife? No, for he is a bachelor and a bachelor lacks a wife. Therefore, Mike is incapable of taking a wife. But this is no restriction on Mike, for a married bachelor is a logical contradiction and being unable to actualize a contradiction is no restriction.

It's extraordinarily bad reasoning. Stop it. Mike is a bachelor. But that doesn't mean he lacks the ability to take a wife. He can take a wife, he'll just stop being a bachelor when he does.

God is omnipotent. That doesn't mean he lacks the ability not to be omnipotent. He can cease to be omnipotent (he wouldn't be omnipotent otherwise!). It is just that if he exercises that ability - the ability to cease to be omnipotent (an ability only he has) - he will, you know, cease to be omnipotent.

There still seems to be an issue in that you can say of God before he creates the stone that there are potential stones that he can’t lift - there’s already a deficiency. Omnipotence understood instead as all powers that exist - like the power heat has to boil water - coming from God gets around these problems.

I do not see what the problem is. How would God be omnipotent if he couldn't divest himself of his omnipotence?

If God could not get rid of his omnipotence he would not be omnipotent. It's a simple point.

There's no problem here. None. There's just confusion. There's just thinking that God is somehow bound by a definition. A mistake that theists and atheists seem united in making. I keep giving the example of the bachelor. Do you too think the bachelor is incapable of taking a wife? Is there a strange force that prevents them from saying 'yes' and that comes from the word bachelor?

The two examples aren’t analogous. The possibility of marriage doesn’t affect the man’s bachelorhood, whereas the possibility of being unable to lift a stone does affect the claim of God’s omnipotence.

Being unable to divest himself of his omnipotence isn’t a deficiency if no such power exists.

The two examples aren’t analogous. The possibility of marriage doesn’t affect the man’s bachelorhood, whereas the possibility of being unable to lift a stone does affect the claim of God’s omnipotence. — AJJ

Question begging. How? How does being able to do something imply a 'lack' of power rather than possession of one?

Being unable to divest himself of his omnipotence isn’t a deficiency if no such power exists. — AJJ

But it does and it is.

I have powers. I can divest myself of them. For instance, I could take a hammer and smash the fingers on my right hand. Now I can't do a load of things i could before. I have the power to do that.

An omnipotent being obviously has the power to divest himself of his powers. If he didn't, he wouldn't be omnipotent, he'd be hobbled.

Oi Banno, yes, he can do all of those things. — Bartricks

Good.

Then he will have no trouble friddling a bleth.

And we are left with the observation that your approach is quite literal nonsense.

How does being able to do something imply a 'lack' of power rather than possession of one? — Bartricks

It’s the being unable to lift the stone that affects the claim of his omnipotence. Unless no such power to lift the stone exists, in which case he isn’t deficient and so hasn’t divested himself of his omnipotence.

If you smash up your hand you won’t be able to pick things up. Picking things up is a power that hands have, so this would qualify as a deficiency. If hands had no such power, then it wouldn’t be a deficiency.

It's not my fault you can't grasp the difference between being able to realize a contradictory state of affairs and actually having done so.

It is obvious that to any question "can God do..." the answer is going to be 'yes', as God can do anything.

You then decide that if God can do things that make no sense to you, this is some kind of problem (as if God is beholden to you!).

God is in charge of what does and does not make sense. Now, the idea of a married bachelor makes no sense, as does a lot else. That, note, is not something I dispute. The point, though, is that it is by reason - and so by God - that these things do not make sense. Their 'not making sense' is of a piece with their being rebarbative to Reason. But God is Reason and thus their not making sense is in his gift.

THey do not make sense. But they do not have to not make sense. THey just don't make sense.

Needless to say, you need to respond to this with 'nonsense' and more 'can God 3 a turnip?' tediousness.

Oh, I understand. In your view god can friddling a bleth but chooses not to.

God is in charge of what does and does not make sense. — Bartricks

By your account, if god can do anything, then god can even do things that do not make sense to god, not just to me.

The only thing left to do is laugh.

As David Lewis said, you can't refute an argument with an incredulous stare. That seems to be all you've got.

Yes, God can do anything. Reason constitutively determines what is and isn't possible and what does and does not make sense, and Reason is God. You have no rational criticism, just contempt. Cross little baby fists will not dent this rationality tank.