Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ron V on April 10, 2011 at 1:30pm

The historical discussions are similar to these contemporary posts:

 

http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2035

God is generally considered to be both omnipotent and omniscient. Let’s say he created the universe. At the time of creation he knows how everything is going to play out. Doesn’t that limit his options to intervene in the future? In order to maintain his omniscience, he can’t intervene in a way that he didn’t know he was going to do beforehand. And if his actions are limited by this constraint, can he be omnipotent?

 

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Can_god_be_omniscient_and_o...

If he knows all (which means he knows the future) he is powerless to change it. If he can change the future, then he didn't know about it fully.

 

http://ooine.com/2008/04/30/Omnipotence-and-Omniscience-are-Mutuall...

It is impossible to have an omnipotent, (all powerful) omniscient (all knowing) god.

If your god is omniscient, then he knows everything that has happened and that ever will happen. But if he knows what will happen then he cannot change it, therefore he cannot be omnipotent.

But if he decides to change some future event, then he cannot be omniscient because he did not know the new future before he changed it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Harris on April 10, 2011 at 2:50pm

Informed philosophers for centuries have pointed out that omni-attributes only extend to what is actually logically possible. For example, all the power in the world cannot make a square circle or a married bachelor. These are contradictions or absurdities.

So if God knows that X will happen that means X will happen. And to change it means X will not happen. It is contradictory to assert that something will happen and will not happen at the same time and in the same sense.

Your post serves to clarify the definitions of the omni-attributes and point out logical absurdities with inadequate definitions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron V on April 10, 2011 at 9:25pm

Of course, you can create loopholes to avoid the obvious here- the definitions seem to be inadequate only for those who can't seem to accept the obvious- which is fine and makes for some good debate- but we can mentally masturbate this ad nauseum - conceptually, to me, it is as straight forward as it appears- omniscience and omnipotence, in the sense of the words as intended, are mutually exclusive- throw in omnibenevolent for a menage a trois of semantic fun.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Gorey on April 9, 2011 at 10:36pm

"Finally, as a Christian Theist, I think scientific discovery will progressively confirm the following predictions:

Continual confirmation of cosmological models that require an absolute beginning (even in the case of multi-verses or oscillation).

Neurological studies that indicate mind and brain interact but are distinct to the extent that mind is not reducible to brain (or physical components).

Further discoveries of conditions and constants in the Big Bang itself that are fine-tuned for intelligent life.

No discoveries will conclusively overturn the historical and archeological confirmations supporting the origins of Christianity, but will continue to affirm it."

this made me spit out my drink. are you honestly that hopelessly ignorant of science and history? Also, it isn't that it is non-falsifiable. "god did it" is UNTESTABLE and EXPLAINS NOTHING (no mechanism, no predictive novelty, no design theory) while introducing a new ontological class of things.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on April 10, 2011 at 6:30am

I know - it's like in one catastrophic plunge he turned into Bill Owen, and I used to think this one was the smart one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on April 10, 2011 at 10:00pm

The only difference is that he opened with what he thought were his 'big guns', ha ha ha.  Unlike Wild Bill, however, after his big guns were shredded he just didn't have the decency to crawl away embarrassed.  Now he's reduced to posts that are actually more lame than Wild Bill's initial posts, so it's sort of a devolution, if you will.  The sad part is that I think this one thinks he's still actually accomplishing something here aside from proving the absolute absurdity of theism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on April 11, 2011 at 8:52am

I'm thinking he likes to regale his fellow parishioners each Sunday after morning service with narratives of how he is raising doubts in Atheist minds with his deeply philosophical posts.  He may even take printouts of his posts and the other skypilots ooh and aah at them with their brainwashed minds thinking surely those questions must be impossible for Atheists, ha ha ha

 

All of this sort of makes me feel like going to church.  If he can come here, why can't we go there, and then stand around in the lobby afterward posing unanswerable paradoxes for skypilots?  Can they legally throw us out if we don't believe in their invisible man?  Wouldn't that be discrimination?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Harris on April 10, 2011 at 2:57pm

Was I not clear enough? If Christian Theism is true, that means the universe had a beginning. Therefore, one can predict that scientific discovery will continue in the direction of an absolute beginning. (That will continue to lead to philosophical speculations as to what began it).

If Christianity is true, then no archeological evidence will ever overturn it, i.e. if it is conclusively discovered that Christ did not exist. Such discoveries would falsify Christianity.

Therefore, one can posit what one thinks is the best view then make predictions about future discoveries in various areas. A view that can make no predictions is not a very good view.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Gorey on April 10, 2011 at 3:34pm

There is no consensus for those things now.

The current view in science is the Einsteinian notion of time, which eliminates your view of any type of meaningful beginning. You really need to quit trying to ineptly fit physics into a naive classical metaphysical framework. Intuitions are worthless when it comes to understanding the deep rules and structures of existences.

Also, historical Jesus studies do not prove Jesus exists, they say "if Jesus existed, then this is what his world and life would have been like." Right now, there isn't a shred of evidence for Jesus as a historical figure outside of the Bible. Unless you naively assume the Bible is correct from the beginning, then you can not offer anything. On top of this, it is the overwhelming historical consensus that ancient Israel was polytheistic and your entire notion of God is a later revision. As a historian, I am very deeply insulted by smug ignorance and disregard in regards to ancient near-east history.

And your predictions are: if Christianity is true, then we will not find anything that would prove Christianity false. If Christianity is true, then humans have souls and God created the universe and man. NO SHIT. This isn't a prediction, this is a tautology. Not only that, but it treads into territory in which is largely unknown. You are forgetting about how in all areas that are fleshed out, Christianity has lost its ass and now you guys have to refer to a massive amount of the old testament as a "metaphor" and engage in massive cherry picking just so you do not have to throw that Book in the garbage.

A real prediction would be something meaningful, like how Neil Shubin was able to locate Tiktaalik according to the consensus views in biology and geology about the age of the earth, evolutionary history, and plate tectonics.

Also, in what part of evolution did God add a soul?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Harris on April 14, 2011 at 10:35am

"Intuitions are worthless when it comes to understanding the deep rules and structures of existences."

You just offered an intuition concerning X that intuitions concerning X are worthless! That is self-refuting. The results of studies in physics and QM, etc. lead to speculation and intuitive reflection.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Siqueiros on April 10, 2011 at 8:38am

Silly season again for the "science cannot detect God" argument, by a religious theist no less.

 

Every major religion out there claims there was empirical evidence for the existence of their God. Abraham had an angel stop him from slaughtering his kid. Moses saw a burning bush. Several people saw Jesus killed by crucifixion, but saw him alive a bit later. Catholics have seen apparitions of the Virgin Mary. An angel showed golden tablets to Joseph Smith. And on and on and on.

 

If any of this stuff happened, why can't you scientifically prove any of it? Why would God reveal clear evidence of herself to only a few select chosen folks but deny the great majority of humans any evidence of existence at all? Well, the most obvious answer are that those few select chosen folks are liars, insane, or really stupid.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Harris on April 14, 2011 at 10:28am

Tell me how you scientifically verify historical events? Are you suggesting that historical events can be re-created in a lab? (Hint: the answer is forensic science and/or archeology).

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page