(OK, it's too long) This part 2/2
Another medieval conundrum displaying conceptual limits for any concept of God: "Can an omnipotent God create a stone too big for Him to lift?" To say either yes or no immediately implies that God is not omnipotent. If God's omnipotence is like that; then, “omnipotence” or “God” or both need a fresh conceptual analysis.• Stretching language past it limits is a commonplace in discourse about gods. Modern philosophy demonstrates that attempts to create a coherent concept of God often fail to appreciate the limits of ordinary language. Adjectives are always relative to some context. A context free absolute adjective describes nothing.In some contexts an absolute adjective also can describe nothing. There exists no greatest integer -- since for all integers n, there is a unique successor integer n+1. This is one of Peano's axioms for arithmetic. Can there exist a "greatest" god? In what context would a reply be made? And why would anyone identify this hypothesized god with God or Allah or YHVH?A related gambit is to claim that the word 'good' when applied to some alleged divinity does not mean the same thing as 'good' when applied to human acts. This vulgar trick exemplifies the fallacy of equivocation or ambiguity.At this point, god-talk veers into a claim that “human” language cannot describe God without falling into “paradox.”• Most theists, deists, agnostics have no clear concept of “God”. Though the panto-god: all powerful, all knowing, all merciful, will often make its (his, her) appearance. This conjunction of attributes is easy to undermine. Its individual components are conceptually incoherent.Epicurus took on the gods by reductio ad absurdum -- 300 years BCE -- by showing that a faith-based panto-god must be a moral monster. The existence of a panto-god is logically inconsistent with "evil". The gods, said Epicurus, do exist, but they lead a perfect life removed from human concerns. This is a form of thinking which deists would take up and modify. That was 350 years before xian anti-intellectualism became de rigeur. Too bad Jesus’ “Father” did not allow him to get a proper education in Aristotle’s logic, Stoic logic, and Epicurean philosophy.Xianity has spent so much time lying to shore up its failed concept of a “pantocrator” that there is even a name for this branch of theological special pleading, theodicy.Can the negation of an existential claim be proved? Sure. YHVH, God, and Allah simply do not exist because they cannot exist. At the core of the Big-3 lies, not exalted "paradox" as Kierkegaard claims, but logical incoherence. There is no rational defense for irrationalism. the anti_supernaturalist
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by D L in Small Talk. Last reply by D L Sep 20.
Started by rationalrevolution in The Bible, The Koran, and other scripture. Last reply by Mike Lansing Nov 8.
Started by D L in Small Talk. Last reply by D L Feb 22.
Started by Gregg RThomas in Small Talk Oct 27, 2017.
Started by Violetta Fay in Small Talk. Last reply by Mike Lansing Nov 8.
Sunday School May 28th 2017
Sunday School May 21st 2017
Sunday School May 14th 2017
Posted by Muhammad ali on August 5, 2017 at 9:27am
Posted by Brad Snowder on July 9, 2017 at 1:08am
© 2018 Created by Rebel.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.