Omniscient Atheism

[jiggeryqua]

Yes, thank you, I'm settling in nicely and getting to know some of you, at least by your posting styles. Not terribly many posts yet, but I find myself frequently having to repeat that I am neither a christian nor any other variety of theist, so I'll put it right here again just to be sure.

You chaps (gender-neutral word) seem red-hot at identifying fallacies in reasoning (even to the the extent of introducing me to the accepted labels for some of the more common errors of argument, for which I'm grateful), so perhaps someone can tell me what this fallacy is called?

"Omniscient God? My arse, have you seen what he's done and what he refuses to do? I'm pretty smart, at least I think I am, but I can't condone behaving like that, so how can an omniscient god?"

I suspect it involves a mis-definition of 'omniscient' as meaning 'almost as intelligent as I am'.

[drkitten]

so perhaps someone can tell me what this fallacy is called?

"Omniscient God? My arse, have you seen what he's done and what he refuses to do? I'm pretty smart, at least I think I am, but I can't condone behaving like that, so how can an omniscient god?"

Delighted. It's called a straw man.

Now, if you actually represented the argument the atheists made properly, it wouldn't necessarily be fallacious. Tradition ascribes to God three key attributes : omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence. These are unfortunately irreconcilable; an omnibenevolent being would not allow people to suffer if He knew they were suffering and could prevent it, an omniscient being would know they were suffering, and an omnipotent being could prevent it (because He can by definition do anything).

It doesn't require me being "smarter than God" to recognize that those three attributes are irreconcilable and contradictory, any more than it requires a Ph.D. in geometry to recognize that a four-sided triangle is irreconcilable.

Theologians and apologists have been pounding at this one for more than a thousand years, without much success.

Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't bad (fallacious) arguments against God out there. If one simply wishes to claim that damning unbaptized babies to Hell is immoral, there are several holes in the argument. (You need to show, first, that God actually does this, and second, that there is a Pareto-superior alternative that is within God's capacity.)

[joobz]

... so perhaps someone can tell me what this fallacy is called?

Um, what (s)he said.

[jiggeryqua]

Delighted. It's called a straw man.

Now, if you actually represented the argument the atheists made properly, it wouldn't necessarily be fallacious.

Well, if you want to ascribe that argument to all self-proclaimed atheists, that's another problem entirely. Unsurprisingly, I wasn't referring to those who present the argument you presented so lucidly. Well done, an articulate straw man looks so much more convincing. If you insist that I now link to an example of a self-proclaimed atheist making the fallacious argument I paraphrased, I'm going to claim to be busy and disappoint you - it wasn't a specific instance that prompted the thread, but an accreted discontentment with its common appearance. You can pretend that all atheists never make mistakes in retaliation, if you like. You could keep an eye open for it happening again, if you like - I will, and will link it here when I see it.

[Hokulele]

...

You can pretend that all atheists never make mistakes in retaliation, if you like. You could keep an eye open for it happening again, if you like - I will, and will link it here when I see it.


There's another one!

[joobz]

... it wasn't a specific instance that prompted the thread, ....
Hence the strawman.


ETA: Dr.Kitten summed up nicely the proper argument made in relationship to omniscience and god. Any argument less than this one, is a strawman, as it is a more easily defeatable version of what the real argument is. Regardless of whether or not someone atheist actually makes the weaker argument.

In a debate, it is better to attack the strongest argument the opponent has than the weaker. If all you can do is attack weak arguments, you openly admit you lost.

[jiggeryqua]

There'll be a better label than 'quoting out of context' too, I expect. It wasn't a specific instance, but an accumulation of specific instances. No strawman involved.

drkitten informs us that theologians and apologists (is that a genuine category of thinker, or some kind of cereal-based stand-in?) have struggled with the question of omniscience for some very long time. I'll allow that it always accompanies claims of omnipotence (if we're allowing that 'god' be defined only by a position that suits our argument at the time), though I've never personally encountered the term 'omnibenevolence' before'. Certainly, those christians I've encountered tend to refer to a 'benevolent' god, but I suspect the good doctor invented the omni- prefix there.

But again, while I'm sure it's anyone's human right to question the existence of god - and even to demand tailored proof - why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?

[jiggeryqua]

In a debate, it is better to attack the strongest argument the opponent has than the weaker. If all you can do is attack weak arguments, you openly admit you lost.

I was merely asking for a label for it, I have no axe to grind for either side (although I do hone it on the idea that there are only two sides, now and again). It wasn't a debate, I wasn't attacking the argument - any more than I'd kick someone who was obviously crippled.

[tsig]

There'll be a better label than 'quoting out of context' too, I expect. It wasn't a specific instance, but an accumulation of specific instances. No strawman involved.

drkitten informs us that theologians and apologists (is that a genuine category of thinker, or some kind of cereal-based stand-in?) have struggled with the question of omniscience for some very long time. I'll allow that it always accompanies claims of omnipotence (if we're allowing that 'god' be defined only by a position that suits our argument at the time), though I've never personally encountered the term 'omnibenevolence' before'. Certainly, those christians I've encountered tend to refer to a 'benevolent' god, but I suspect the good doctor invented the omni- prefix there.

But again, while I'm sure it's anyone's human right to question the existence of god - and even to demand tailored proof - why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?

God doesn't post here so we're arguing with you.

[dasmiller]

- it wasn't a specific instance that prompted the thread, but an accreted discontentment with its common appearance.

Like the OP, I don't have any specific cites handy, but I've certainly seen a lot of variations on the "an omniscient god wouldn't do anything this stupid" argument. I'm not sure whether anyone considers it to be a serious, formal argument, though.

Well, okay, some people probably do.

Anyway, it makes good fodder for stand-up comedy routines.

DrKitten's version, while much more rigorous and defensible, simply lacks the comedic potential.

[jiggeryqua]

God doesn't post here so we're arguing with you unless are you're channeling god.

Well feel free to argue with me, if that's how you get your jollies. I don't channel anybody or anything - but it's always best on a skeptics forum to kick people in case they're woos, don't you think? So crack on - have an argument, I'll try to join in if you're at all entertaining.

The question (or at least the last one, though you seem unable to retain enough information from the post you're responding to to answer the questions in it, so I doubt it will work to repeat it) was:

"why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?"

[jiggeryqua]

Like the OP, I don't have any specific cites handy, but I've certainly seen a lot of variations on the "an omniscient god wouldn't do anything this stupid" argument. I'm not sure whether anyone considers it to be a serious, formal argument, though.

Which is why my post asked the name of the fallacy involved in presenting it as an argument, do you see? There'll be a label for this proclivity to respond to what you think you read rather than what was there, as well, I expect.

[CurtC]

"Omniscient God? My arse, have you seen what he's done and what he refuses to do? I'm pretty smart, at least I think I am, but I can't condone behaving like that, so how can an omniscient god"

If you could so kindly provide a link to someone actually saying this, it would help. If I heard someone saying this, I'd think he's terribly confused, because omniscience and acting in a morally upright way are not the same concept.

I'd call it a non-sequitur fallacy. The implied premise that God would act morally does not follow from the idea of omniscience.

drkitten informs us that theologians and apologists (is that a genuine category of thinker, or some kind of cereal-based stand-in?)...Sure, theologians are thinkers. Just like someone can furiously think through the idea of a perfect unicorn. They're just avoiding seeing a big problem in their thinking.


... have struggled with the question of omniscience for some very long time. I'll allow that it always accompanies claims of omnipotence (if we're allowing that 'god' be defined only by a position that suits our argument at the time), though I've never personally encountered the term 'omnibenevolence' before'.

The idea that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent is quite commonly worded that way. A nice shorthand is "tri-omni."

[Hokulele]

Which is why my post asked the name of the fallacy involved in presenting it as an argument, do you see? There'll be a label for this proclivity to respond to what you think you read rather than what was there, as well, I expect.


It isn't a fallacy, it is just a bad argument for the reasons you have expressed.

Now, arguing that they are wrong because "Why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?" is bordering on an argument from incredulity (or an ad hominem, or probably something else I cannot recall). And of course, this assumes that the atheist in question would actually believe they could argue with a god, which pretty much disqualifies them from being an atheist.

[skeptical]

But again, while I'm sure it's anyone's human right to question the existence of god - and even to demand tailored proof - why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?

This is of course correct, as far as it goes. The linchpin of the discussion however is what DRK said: the attributes of most theistic God's always come as a triplet of: Omniscient, Omnipotent, and benevolent. As far as I know, they always appear this way.

Hence, if you read DRK's post, this is what he was addressing.

If you insist on breaking out only Omniscience and then asking how could a non-omniscient being know more than a Omniscient being, then the answer of course is "they couldn't". But since the argument is never put that way and since the single attribute is never the _only_ attribute claimed, this is what makes the claim a straw man or at the very least completely uninteresting.

[dasmiller]

Which is why my post asked the name of the fallacy involved in presenting it as an argument, do you see? There'll be a label for this proclivity to respond to what you think you read rather than what was there, as well, I expect.

And this would be Exhibit A of that proclivity. I posted my response simply to agree with you that I really have heard people use that argument. What do you think I read into your post that wasn't there?

[Piscivore]

Yes, thank you, I'm settling in nicely and getting to know some of you, at least by your posting styles. Not terribly many posts yet, but I find myself frequently having to repeat that I am neither a christian nor any other variety of theist, so I'll put it right here again just to be sure.

You chaps (gender-neutral word) seem red-hot at identifying fallacies in reasoning (even to the the extent of introducing me to the accepted labels for some of the more common errors of argument, for which I'm grateful), so perhaps someone can tell me what this fallacy is called?

"Omniscient God? My arse, have you seen what he's done and what he refuses to do? I'm pretty smart, at least I think I am, but I can't condone behaving like that, so how can an omniscient god?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

ETA: and as Hoku pointed out, that "argument" assumes god exists, and is questioning its omniscience. It is not the argument of an atheist.

[CurtC]

The question (or at least the last one, though you seem unable to retain enough information from the post you're responding to to answer the questions in it, so I doubt it will work to repeat it) was:

"why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?"

Again, I really think you need to provide more detail about the argument that these atheists make, or maybe a link to one. From the OP, it sounded to me like that argument was that God wouldn't, for example, let babies in the third world die a slow painful death because he's omniscient. That argument just doesn't make sense.

But now I'm wondering whether you mean something else, like God wouldn't make a giraffe's vagus nerve run from his brain, down his neck, loop around his aorta, and back up to the larynx, because that's a stupid way to do it an no omniscient designer would do so. Was this the argument you meant?

[jiggeryqua]

It isn't a fallacy, it is just a bad argument for the reasons you have expressed.

Now, arguing that they are wrong because "Why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?" is bordering on an argument from incredulity (or an ad hominem, or probably something else I cannot recall). And of course, this assumes that the atheist in question would actually believe they could argue with a god, which pretty much disqualifies them from being an atheist.

"a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation." Alright, that's wiki, but it'll do. It's a fallacious argument, which can be observed here. (Some) Posters imagine that they can cast doubt on the existence of god by claiming that god's behaviour looks foolish or wrong or cruel to them. Such a position necessarily supposes the poster to be 'more' omniscient than the posited god. I am incredulous that any poster is in any measure omniscient (I think the custom is to lay the burden of proof on them, no?). I don't believe, for similar reasons, that to suggest a poster is not omnisicent can truly be called an ad hominem attack.

Of course, the 'atheist' is not arguing with god - there'll be a label for that remark of yours too, I shouldn't wonder. They are arguing with believers in god, by arguing that 'god' would not behave as 'god' apparantly behaves - and the 'evidence' they offer for this is that they themselves would not behave in that way.

oh and yes, drkitten, theologians and 'apologists' (is that anything like a 'capitalist running dog' or 'apostate'?) have discussed all manner of questions for over a thousand years. Yet so many of them crop up here still. If you ask me to verify that you've never tried to quash a thread in a similar way before, I'll have to explain that I'm still busy.

[jiggeryqua]

Sure, theologians are thinkers.

Of the two listed nouns, the one I was querying was, unsurprisingly, 'apologists' and not theologians. If that wasn't clear from it being the last referenced, you might at least assume that I'm not utterly ignorant, even if you can't assume that the absence of an explanatory clause necessarily made 'it' the most recent noun used.

[drkitten]

But again, while I'm sure it's anyone's human right to question the existence of god - and even to demand tailored proof - why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?

Several reasons. Partly because there are canonical examples of just that happening (the most famous being Abraham's argument with God in Genesis 18(:25) -- "That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?")

And partly because a correct argument remains correct even if the person making it knows less than the listener.

[Piscivore]

"a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation." Alright, that's wiki, but it'll do. It's a fallacious argument, which can be observed here. (Some) Posters imagine that they can cast doubt on the existence of god by claiming that god's behaviour looks foolish or wrong or cruel to them.
And as drkitten pointed out, that is an appeal to a higher morality than god's.

Such a position necessarily supposes the poster to be 'more' omniscient than the posited god. I am incredulous that any poster is in any measure omniscient (I think the custom is to lay the burden of proof on them, no?). I don't believe, for similar reasons, that to suggest a poster is not omnisicent can truly be called an ad hominem attack.
I'm not sure you are entirely clear on what "Omnicient" means. One cannot know "more everything" than someone who knows everything. One also does not need to "see all" to appeal to a higher morality than god's.

oh and yes, drkitten, theologians and 'apologists' (is that anything like a 'capitalist running dog' or 'apostate'?)
Get a dictionary. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologist) Especially before snarkily implying people are making stuff up or creating disparaging terms.

[Hokulele]

"a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation." Alright, that's wiki, but it'll do. It's a fallacious argument, which can be observed here. (Some) Posters imagine that they can cast doubt on the existence of god by claiming that god's behaviour looks foolish or wrong or cruel to them. Such a position necessarily supposes the poster to be 'more' omniscient than the posited god. I am incredulous that any poster is in any measure omniscient (I think the custom is to lay the burden of proof on them, no?). I don't believe, for similar reasons, that to suggest a poster is not omnisicent can truly be called an ad hominem attack.


No, but saying "you are wrong because you are not omniscient" is. I do not see the argument made that the poster is "more" omniscient than god, but a lot of that will depend on context. If it is an ethical discussion, then the is-ought problem kicks in. If it is a design discussion, such as that mentioned by CurtC, then it is a reasonable counter for an "intelligent design" argument.

I think one of the problems encountered on this forum is that people want to label all bad arguments as fallacies. Some are simply bad arguments, whether it is because they are based on false premises or whatever.

[drkitten]

Of the two listed nouns, the one I was querying was, unsurprisingly, 'apologists' and not theologians. If that wasn't clear from it being the last referenced, you might at least assume that I'm not utterly ignorant, even if you can't assume that the absence of an explanatory clause necessarily made 'it' the most recent noun used.

Yes. "Apologetics" is specifically the branch of Christian theology concerned with defense and explanation of Christian doctrine; an apologist is one who specializes in this area.

They tend to be at the forefront of the "convert the heathen via intellect" movement; C.S. Lewis was a noted 20th century apologist.

[CurtC]

(Some) Posters imagine that they can cast doubt on the existence of god by claiming that god's behaviour looks foolish or wrong or cruel to them.

If someone believes in a god who is simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then the existence of all manner of suffering proves this god to be logically inconsistent and therefore to not exist. Epicurus figured that out thousands of years ago.

I'm not saying that I'm smarter than anything, I'm just saying that it's a logical impossibility.

[jiggeryqua]

Several reasons. Partly because there are canonical examples of just that happening (the most famous being Abraham's argument with God in Genesis 18(:25) -- "That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?")

And partly because a correct argument remains correct even if the person making it knows less than the listener.

So, although the bible apparantly shows that god is not omniscient, theologians have struggled with the irreconcilability of god's omniscience for over a thousand years? Did none of them read the book?

A 'correct' argument is only correct in light of all pertinent knowledge. It would take an omnisicent being to know that they had all pertinent knowledge.

A fiver to the first poster to approach me and say "You are Kolly Kibber and I know more than god".

[Piscivore]

If someone believes in a god who is simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then the existence of all manner of suffering proves this god to be logically inconsistent and therefore to not exist. Epicurus figured that out thousands of years ago.

I'm not saying that I'm smarter than anything, I'm just saying that it's a logical impossibility.

Well, unless what we might percieve as "suffering" from our limited perspective is, from a god's omniscient perpective, ultimately more beneficial in the long run to that particular person than not suffering. Sort of like punishing a child.

[Piscivore]

"You are Kolly Kibber and I know more than god".

[jiggeryqua]

Epicurus figured that out thousands of years ago.


He did - and other ancients had theories of their own. Aristotle 'figured out' that women are colder than men and thus a lower form of life. Yet, as we've been reminded, theologians continue(d) to discuss it for over a thousand years - what shame you weren't around to throw Epicurus at them.


Of the triad, I focused on omniscience because 'benevolence' can only be judged in light of all pertinent knowledge (omnipotence to one side for a moment, lest someone asks if god can shoot a penalty he can't save). Oh, and because I've encountered posters who apparantly believe themselves to be more intelligent than god.

I did front up, right at the top - I have no intention of going and digging out an example. I've never bookmarked them, for heave...for pete's sake, and in their absence you may claim that it never, ever happens. If you like. I probably shan't take you very seriously if you do, though.

[CurtC]

Of the two listed nouns, the one I was querying was, unsurprisingly, 'apologists' and not theologians. If that wasn't clear from it being the last referenced, you might at least assume that I'm not utterly ignorant, even if you can't assume that the absence of an explanatory clause necessarily made 'it' the most recent noun used.

Sorry, I thought you meant "theologians and apologists" together since they're pretty much the same thing. Now I'm confused about what you were talking about; were you objecting to one term but not the other? Piscivore and drkitten seem to think that you just weren't aware of what "apologist" means, but that wasn't my assumption.

[Hokulele]

Well, unless what we might percieve as "suffering" from our limited perspective is, from a god's omniscient perpective, ultimately more beneficial in the long run to that particular person than not suffering. Sort of like punishing a child.


Which then runs head-first into the omnipotence problem. Having human existence where the benefits can accrue without the suffering is beyond god's power, so therefore it either wants people to suffer (not omnibenevolent), or it has no choice but to let them suffer (not omnipotent). If you could get a child to behave by pure reason, rather than by punishment, wouldn't a loving parent prefer that as an option?

[drkitten]

So, although the bible apparantly shows that god is not omniscient,

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."

Nothing about Abraham's bargain indicates that God is not omniscient.


A 'correct' argument is only correct in light of all pertinent knowledge. It would take an omnisicent being to know that they had all pertinent knowledge.

Not at all. I can safely and correctly argue, for example, that if there is nothing in my cup, then there is no coffee in my cup. If someone tried to argue that there was nothing in my cup, and therefore that my cup is filled with coffee, I have no problem labelling him as incorrect. The fact that I might not know much about forensic minerology or the exact dating of Shakespeare's Cymbeline would not be relevant.

... and I know that it's not relevant.

Furthermore, there's nothing particularly wrong about an omniscient being telling me that there is coffee in my cup, even knowing that the cup is empty. Omnisicent does not necessarily mean truthful. Nor does it mean "nice," which is why an omnisicent God could still destroy Sodom. Abraham pointed out not that God would fail to be omniscient, but that He would fail to be just or fair.

[Dunstan]

'apologists' (is that anything like a 'capitalist running dog' or 'apostate'?)

Actually, "apologist" and "apologetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics)" are terms used by (among others) many Christians to describe themselves and their arguments. It's not some derogatory label that atheists made up.

And to address the original question, sure, you can handwave away any argument against the omnibenevolence of god by saying "oh, but you're not omniscient, so that seemingly non-good event is actually a necessary part of god's secret plans that you're too limited to understand." But that has at least two problems.

First, as has been pointed out already, assuming we're dealing with a hypothetical tri-omni god, you're implicitly contradicting the omnibenevolence postulate -- if god can't accomplish good without allowing some suffering, then it is not truly omnipotent but is instead subject to some limits.

Second, the argument would apply equally to a claim that god is omnimalevolent. "Sure, there is some joy in the world, but that's just a necessary part of god's secret plan to make us suffer, which you are too limited to understand." It thus also effectively negates any evidence that an apologist wants to offer in support of the omnibenevolence claim. If it is impossible for a limited human mind to comprehend god's plan, then our limited human minds have no basis to claim anything about that god's intentions. But believers in a tri-omni god usually want to have it both ways: selectively point to what they claim is evidence of god's love and benevolence, and handwave away any contrary evidence with "we can't possibly understand what's at work here."

[CurtC]

He did - and other ancients had theories of their own. Aristotle 'figured out' that women are colder than men and thus a lower form of life. Yet, as we've been reminded, theologians continue(d) to discuss it for over a thousand years - what shame you weren't around to throw Epicurus at them.

Theologians have struggled with the problem of evil for thousands of years, because they haven't come up with an answer to it. I didn't need to be around to throw Epicurus at them because that's what they were struggling in vain to address.

[jiggeryqua]

"You are Kolly Kibber and I know more than god".

I really should have added a clause about proving it, eh? Never mind, I came out the other side of christmas with a profit, so if you'll send me your house number and postcode, I'll pop a postal order in an envelope.


I'll not put a stamp on it though.

[drkitten]

Sorry, I thought you meant "theologians and apologists" together since they're pretty much the same thing.

No more than physicians and surgeons are pretty much the same thing.

[jiggeryqua]

But believers in a tri-omni god usually want to have it both ways: selectively point to what they claim is evidence of god's love and benevolence, and handwave away any contrary evidence with "we can't possibly understand what's at work here."

I can assure you that the atheists in question are not believers in a tri-omni god.

[Piscivore]

Which then runs head-first into the omnipotence problem. Having human existence where the benefits can accrue without the suffering is beyond god's power, so therefore it either wants people to suffer (not omnibenevolent), or it has no choice but to let them suffer (not omnipotent).
Maybe god is a masochist and by his lights making us hurt is doing us a favour, only we're not able to understand that?

If you could get a child to behave by pure reason, rather than by punishment, wouldn't a loving parent prefer that as an option?
Where's the fun in that?

[Piscivore]

I really should have added a clause about proving it, eh?

That's easy. I have at least a rudimentary intelligence and god does not exist. Let him appear and prove otherwise.

[drkitten]

I can assure you that the atheists in question are not believers in a tri-omni god.

Of course not. They are typically responding (rationally) to positive claims of the existence of a tri-omni God.

Specifically, if I can prove that an entity cannot consistently exist, then it does not exist. Since the tri-omni God is inconsistent, this becomes an atheist argument against the existence of a particular but common formulation of God.

And it doesn't require omni-anything, any more than it requires omniscience for me to reject your claim that Alabama will score more points in the upcoming football game, but still lose. Since the winner of a game is defined as the one who scores more points, the situation described is inconsistent. I don't need to know the actual score of the game to know that the situation described cannot arise.

[jiggeryqua]

Gosh, posts just fly by, don't they.

[Piscivore], 'cruel' would relate to morality, possibly even 'wrong' in some instances, but 'foolish' doesn't and clearly widens the discussion. I am entirely clear on what omniscient means, hence my use of detachment quote marks for 'more' omnisicent. And no, I was unaware of the term 'apologists', though I learn now that Plato was one too. I still query the use of the term in the phrase 'theologians and apologists' if an apologists is assumed to be a subset of theologians.

[Hokulele]

Maybe god is a masochist and by his lights making us hurt is doing us a favour, only we're not able to understand that?


As long as he hates every minute our pain, that's all righty then.

Oh wait a minute, just how "omni" is omnibenevolent?

Where's the fun in that?


C'mon, which do you think is worse, sitting in a timeout corner for 15 minutes or having some well-meaning jerk pontificate at you for an hour? ;)

[jiggeryqua]

Of course not. They are typically responding (rationally) to positive claims of the existence of a tri-omni God.

Specifically, if I can prove that an entity cannot consistently exist, then it does not exist. Since the tri-omni God is inconsistent, this becomes an atheist argument against the existence of a particular but common formulation of God.

And it doesn't require omni-anything, any more than it requires omniscience for me to reject your claim that Alabama will score more points in the upcoming football game, but still lose. Since the winner of a game is defined as the one who scores more points, the situation described is inconsistent. I don't need to know the actual score of the game to know that the situation described cannot arise.

So let me get this straight - if you'd included the phrase "if you were to make the claim", that bit about Alabama (who are not a football team, but that's a whole other argument...) wouldn't be a strawman? Let's boil this down - you can prove that an non-omniscient human definition of god cannot exist, and then extrapolate from this the extreme unlikeliness of the existence of anything you can't understand?

[jiggeryqua]

That's easy. I have at least a rudimentary intelligence and god does not exist. Let him appear and prove otherwise.

Bad news, Piscivore - god used one of his many magical abilities and contrived to arrive just before you, but only after you'd arrived and drawn his attention to it. He took the fiver too! :o Apparantly he's not omni-wealthy. He can't be, not if he's omnibenevolent, or he'd fund some aid programmes.

[Piscivore]

[Piscivore], 'cruel' would relate to morality, possibly even 'wrong' in some instances, but 'foolish' doesn't and clearly widens the discussion.
I'm not really sure to what you are referring, here.

I am entirely clear on what omniscient means, hence my use of detachment quote marks for 'more' omnisicent.
As has been pointed out, your useage is... inaccurate.

And no, I was unaware of the term 'apologists', though I learn now that Plato was one too. I still query the use of the term in the phrase 'theologians and apologists' if an apologists is assumed to be a subset of theologians.
Query no longer, as it was not so used. It was used more along the lines of "bakers and fishmongers" in the context as "dealers in foodstuffs".

[CurtC]

Let's boil this down - you can prove that an non-omniscient human definition of god cannot exist, and then extrapolate from this the extreme unlikeliness of the existence of anything you can't understand?
I haven't seen anyone do that. The problem of suffering/evil just disproves the common idea of a tri-omni god.

If someone puts forward an actual good definition of the god that he believes in, I'm open to evaluating any evidence for that god. So far all the ones I've looked into are utterly unconvincing. But if that person describes a logically inconsistent version of a god, I can point that out and dispense with it quickly.

It sounds like you're arguing that Christians don't believe in a tri-omni god so there's no problem with a logical inconsistency, but lots of Christians do in fact claim to describe the god they believe in as tri-omni. Our logical disproof is only valid against that particular version of god.

[drkitten]

So let me get this straight - if you'd included the phrase "if you were to make the claim", that bit about Alabama (who are not a football team, but that's a whole other argument...) wouldn't be a strawman? Let's boil this down - you can prove that an non-omniscient human definition of god cannot exist, and then extrapolate from this the extreme unlikeliness of the existence of anything you can't understand?

Wow. That's sheer word salad. I've known people who are on prescription drugs for paragraphs similar to that.

First, the use of the term "Alabama" to refer to the University of Alabama football team is well-known and well-understood to be an example of metonymy, and specifically of synecdoche. I'll leave you to your well-developed research skills to determine whether or not those are real words and whether I'm using them correctly, or if I'm simply pulling cromulent-sounding nonce words out of thin air to mock you.

Second, the Alabama example was an example, a second illustration of the general principle that it's not necessary to have complete knowledge in order to reject contradictions.

Third, I didn't say anything about "the extreme unlikeliness of the existence of anything I can't understand." I'm not even sure where you got that, but I simply pointed out the well-understood logical principle of modus tollens; if a set of facts are contradictory, the facts cannot all be true.

And fourth, I would avoid paragraphs like that in the future. They tend to cause pimples and permanent facial tics.

[Piscivore]

Bad news, Piscivore - god used one of his many magical abilities and contrived to arrive just before you, but only after you'd arrived and drawn his attention to it. He took the fiver too! :o Apparantly he's not omni-wealthy. He can't be, not if he's omnibenevolent, or he'd fund some aid programmes.
Fair enough. I'd have trouble spending your funny English money anyway :).

Which one was it? I bet it was Loki, he's like that.

[ElightenMe]

any more than I'd kick someone who was obviously crippled.

you'd kick someone who you weren't sure was crippled, just to check?

[jiggeryqua]

I'm not really sure to what you are referring, here.
Well it was your post, fella, but as the first line in the post of mine that you're quoting implied, it was some time ago, and I'd missed it.


As has been pointed out, your useage is... inaccurate.
as I just pointed out, I know, that's why I described someone as imagining that they were 'more' omniscient - because they're wrong, and while my detachment punctuation may be unfamiliar to you, your refusal to embrace an explanation of it is tedious and speaks of a need for conflict rather than mutually beneficial conversation.


Query no longer, as it was not so used. It was used more along the lines of "bakers and fishmongers" in the context as "dealers in foodstuffs".

It was precisely so used, above. "theologians and apologists" have apparantly tackled the paradox of a tri-omni god. In what way is an apologist, in this context, not a theologian?

[jiggeryqua]

you'd kick someone who you weren't sure was crippled, just to check?

Would I? Are you sure?

[jiggeryqua]

Wow. That's sheer word salad. I've known people who are on prescription drugs for paragraphs similar to that.
ad hominem, right? I'm getting the hang of this...


First, the use of the term "Alabama" to refer to the University of Alabama football team is well-known and well-understood to be an example of metonymy, and specifically of synecdoche. I'll leave you to your well-developed research skills to determine whether or not those are real words and whether I'm using them correctly, or if I'm simply pulling cromulent-sounding nonce words out of thin air to mock you.

Second, the Alabama example was an example, a second illustration of the general principle that it's not necessary to have complete knowledge in order to reject contradictions.


'Alabama is not a football team' was a jocular aside from the home of football, a game which has been bastardised beyond recognition by a country without the imagination to come up with a new name for a new game. The example was your example, by the way, which is why I consider your calling it my argument to be a strawman.


Third, I didn't say anything about "the extreme unlikeliness of the existence of anything I can't understand." I'm not even sure where you got that, but I simply pointed out the well-understood logical principle of modus tollens; if a set of facts are contradictory, the facts cannot all be true.


True enough, and unargued - and it was (perhaps) wrong of me to suppose that you adopted the position that the existence of god is unlikely in the extreme because your mind cannot comprehend such a possibility. Forgive me, and please, do let me know how you feel about the possible existence of anything that might be or have been identified as god, and your justification for such a position.


And fourth, I would avoid paragraphs like that in the future. They tend to cause pimples and permanent facial tics.
Bless, if you can't handle the side effects, stop taking the medicine. My own ethical position is never to ask someone to change their behaviour, but simply to manage my own and accept any consequences. Please, do let me know why you think you should behave otherwise.

[Sledge]

Is there a point to all this? Enjoyable as it is to watch drkitten slap the newbie around, I'd feel more comfortable if I knew what the argument was actually about.

[jiggeryqua]

Is there a point to all this? Enjoyable as it is to watch drkitten slap the newbie around, I'd feel more comfortable if I knew what the argument was actually about.

Is there a point to your post? I started the thread because I was amused by all the ignorant atheism that flocks here - not that there aren't some intelligent, reasonable posters, but there are also many who are neither and remarkably, perhaps, they're not all theists or woos.

I didn't realise threads were decided on points, but I'll wait for the other judges to weigh in before conceding 'defeat'. Does 'you sound like you're on medication' really count as 'slapping around' round here, by the way? I'd hoped for something better.

[ElightenMe]

Gosh, posts just fly by, don't they.

[Piscivore], 'cruel' would relate to morality, possibly even 'wrong' in some instances, but 'foolish' doesn't and clearly widens the discussion. I am entirely clear on what omniscient means, hence my use of detachment quote marks for 'more' omnisicent. And no, I was unaware of the term 'apologists', though I learn now that Plato was one too. I still query the use of the term in the phrase 'theologians and apologists' if an apologists is assumed to be a subset of theologians.

Omni-, means all.
There are two available states, [all] (omni-) or [not all].
There is no more [all] and no less [all] that is still a set of [all].
However as a subset of [not all], there are infinite states ranging exclusively between [zero] and [all] however, that can be 'more' or 'less' comparitively ([zero] is part of the set of [not all] but cannot be 'more' than any entity).
Therefore, the available states of omniscience are omniscient or not omniscient and as a subset of not omniscient, an entity may be more knowledgeable or less knowledgeable comparitively.

[Sledge]

You started the thread, we can only respond to what you start with. You opened with an unsupported assertion that you'd seen an atheist present a certain argument. You couldn't or wouldn't say who had said this or where. Frankly, you appear to have set up a strawman with the intention of saying "atheists are so stupid and arrogant."

Oh, and post #47 was as fine a written kicking as I've seen recently. Now, as you say you'd hoped for something better, I can only assume you posted not in the hope of inspiring an interesting debate we could all learn from, but in the hope of annoying people into angry responses. That's not the case, is it?

[jiggeryqua]

Omni-, means all.
There are two available states, [all] (omni-) or [not all].
There is no more [all] and no less [all] that is still a set of [all].
However as a subset of [not all], there are infinite states ranging exclusively between [zero] and [all] however, that can be 'more' or 'less' comparitively ([zero] is part of the subset of [not all] but cannot be 'more' than any entity).
Therefore, the available states of omniscience are omniscient or not omniscient and as a subset of not omniscient, an entity may be more knowledgeable or less knowledgeable comparitively.

yes dear, we've covered that in a subsequent post, for those who didn't get it the first time round. The word 'more' was enclosed in detachment punctuation, to indicate that I detached myself from its non-meaning, as I wasaware of its non-meaning. It was deployed in a reference to people who imagine that their intelligence disproves god because god would not act like that if they were god. They clearly do not understand the meaning of omniscience. I do, though that may yet not be clear to some...

[CurtC]

...it was (perhaps) wrong of me to suppose that you adopted the position that the existence of god is unlikely in the extreme because your mind cannot comprehend such a possibility.

Yeah, that would be wrong. I've never seen anyone say that the existence of any definition of a god is extremely unlikely because his mind can't comprehend it. Do you have the idea people have done that?

Forgive me, and please, do let me know how you feel about the possible existence of anything that might be or have been identified as god, and your justification for such a position.What the hell are you talking about?

If someone proposes a god to exist, he should first define it and then present what evidence he thinks supports it. So far, I have not seen evidence of any god-claims of any of the various religions to be convincing, therefore I am an atheist.


It was deployed in a reference to people who imagine that their intelligence disproves god because god would not act like that if they were god.When has anyone done this? I think you're making it up.

[X]

IF what you are trying to say is that:

"I cannot conceive of an omniscient god behaving in the way I describe, therefore I don't believe in an omniscient god."

is a standard atheist argument, then the fallacy being used by your purported atheist is an argument from incredulity.

That said, I know of know atheist presenting that argument.


Are you perhaps confusing the term omniscient with omnibenevolent?

[Pythonic]

Now, arguing that they are wrong because "Why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?" is bordering on an argument from incredulity (or an ad hominem, or probably something else I cannot recall). And of course, this assumes that the atheist in question would actually believe they could argue with a god, which pretty much disqualifies them from being an atheist.

I guess I read that post differently. I didn't see it as a personal attack (even borderline), but rather saying, "if someone believed in such an exceptionally intelligent being then it makes no sense to assume a human could successfully argue with it." That is, it seemed to argue within the context of the other's perspective without acknowledging their basic premise.

[jiggeryqua]

You started the thread, we can only respond to what you start with. You opened with an unsupported assertion that you'd seen an atheist present a certain argument. You couldn't or wouldn't say who had said this or where. Frankly, you appear to have set up a strawman with the intention of saying "atheists are so stupid and arrogant."

Oh, and post #47 was as fine a written kicking as I've seen recently. Now, as you say you'd hoped for something better, I can only assume you posted not in the hope of inspiring an interesting debate we could all learn from, but in the hope of annoying people into angry responses. That's not the case, is it?

Pish and tosh, Sledge - no wonder you seek to chum up to drkitten and talk of 'newbies' while you have less than 1000 posts yourself. I have explained that I have no intention of digging out an example, and why - feel free to claim, as I have invited you to do previously, that it has never ever been presented.

I have no intention of saying 'atheists' are anything - I'm not that stupid, although I can see the appeal of insisting that someone is...it saves you from actually engaging with them and makes you feel clever at the same time. I do say that some atheists are stupid, some are arrogant and some are both. Do, please, come up with a rebuttal. I could use a laugh.

Infuriatingly, posts are not numbered on this page (the reply page), so I'll be obliged to commit another consecutive post to tackle the claim that #47 was a 'kicking'. I had hoped for better than yet another forum where a 'kicking' or 'slapping around' was applauded (gosh, you have a violent mind...), but feel free to interpret my remarks in a way that enables you to enjoy the feeling of a solid verbal punch, if that's how you get your rocks off.

EDIT: checked #47, and addressed it directly earlier. If 'you sound like you're on drugs' is both a sound argument and 'a good kicking' here, then yes, I was definitely hoping for something better

[ElightenMe]

Would I? Are you sure?

It was a light-hearted question. I could not possibly know.

Intended to point out that if you say:
"any more than I'd kick someone who was obviously crippled."
as a comparison with something you wouldn't do, then it implies that you WOULD kick someone who either wasn't crippled OR wasn't obviously crippled. Regardless of the actuality.
:p

ETA: I'm inclined to believe that you wouldn't kick a crippled person, but it is simply a belief of blind faith and naivety.

[Hokulele]

I guess I read that post differently. I didn't see it as a personal attack (even borderline), but rather saying, "if someone believed in such an exceptionally intelligent being then it makes no sense to assume a human could successfully argue with it." That is, it seemed to argue within the context of the other's perspective without acknowledging their basic premise.


Although most ad hominems are personal attacks, an ad hominem fallacy doesn't have to be. For example, if a man claims that menstrual cramps aren't as painful as giving birth and I respond, "You can't understand it because you are a man," that is an example of an ad hominem. Being called a man isn't an insult (that I am aware of ;)), but it doesn't prove the claim to be false.

So to respond by saying, "Since you aren't omniscient, you are wrong," or, as jiggeryqua put it, "Why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god," only addresses the arguer and not the argument, and thus it is a classic ad hominem.

ETA: So in one sense you are correct, if the atheist in question had been saying they could argue with god, that might be a reasonable answer based on the premises, but to say that a non-omniscient being can't argue against the existence of an omniscient being is a fallacy.

[Sledge]

Pish and tosh, Sledge - no wonder you seek to chum up to drkitten and talk of 'newbies' while you have less than 1000 posts yourself.I don't intend to "chum up" to anyone. I don't make friends over the internet. I have real friends for that. What I'm here for is intelligent discussion on topics my friends don't want to discuss, or at least not as much as I do. As for the newbie thing... how does me being a newbie invalidate my ability to recognise you are also one?
I have explained that I have no intention of digging out an example, and why - feel free to claim, as I have invited you to do previously, that it has never ever been presented.This doesn't make any sense. Please rephrase it so as to accurately convey what you mean.
I have no intention of saying 'atheists' are anything - I'm not that stupid,Objection, your honour!
although I can see the appeal of insisting that someone is...it saves you from actually engaging with them and makes you feel clever at the same time. I do say that some atheists are stupid, some are arrogant and some are both. Do, please, come up with a rebuttal. I could use a laugh.A rebuttal to what, exactly? The pattern here seems to be that you say something, people ask what you mean by that and you deny saying it. You want me to rebut you claiming that you didn't say what I did say what you plainly said? I'm not quite sure where such a circular argument could hope to go.
Infuriatingly, posts are not numbered on this page (the reply page),Ah, so you're responding to stuff before reading it. Suddenly so much in this thread becomes clear.
so I'll be obliged to commit another consecutive post to tackle the claim that #47 was a 'kicking'.Or you could use the "edit" button. Or even *GASP* read what people say before you start replying to it.
I had hoped for better than yet another forum where a 'kicking' or 'slapping around' was applauded (gosh, you have a violent mind...), but feel free to interpret my remarks in a way that enables you to enjoy the feeling of a solid verbal punch, if that's how you get your rocks off.
So what HAD you hoped for? You're very clear on what you don't want... no, wait, that's not true. You keep saying that other people's interpretations of your posts aren't correct, so why not say as clearly and concisely as possible what your point is? My guess: because you're afraid it'll be shot down in about ten seconds.

[jiggeryqua]

Yeah, that would be wrong. I've never seen anyone say that the existence of any definition of a god is extremely unlikely because his mind can't comprehend it. Do you have the idea people have done that?


That happens a lot, although obviously the person presenting the argument doesn't phrase it quite that way. It amounts to the same thing though. It may not apply to you - I couldn't possibly know. Do you have the idea that people have never done that?


What the hell are you talking about?

If someone proposes a god to exist, he should first define it and then present what evidence he thinks supports it. So far, I have not seen evidence of any god-claims of any of the various religions to be convincing, therefore I am an atheist.

I am not proposing a god to exist. I am positing the existence of an intelligence greater than yours. (Actually, that's easy - let's posit an intelligence greater than yours by many orders of magnitude or, if you prefer, an omniscient intelligence). Let's call it 'god, for the sake of argument - are you still an atheist?


When has anyone done this? I think you're making it up.

Oh purlease, round and round and round....I said at the start I've observed it, but that I have no intention of ploughing through threads looking for an example. Once again, feel free to claim it never ever happens....oh, you did...surely that would require every single poster here to be supremely intelligent, never mistaken or arrogant - well at least all the self-proclaimed atheist posters. And since I clearly stated I'm no theist in the first post, and since I'm apparantly considerably less than supremely intelligent (as you are, I think), we have to at least concede that someone will make such a claim, even if all the examples I've thus far seen have been mere phantoms.

[CurtC]

That happens a lot, although obviously the person presenting the argument doesn't phrase it quite that way.Hey, then here's an idea - find an example of someone having done that, and we can ridicule him together. I'm a veteran here and at one other board, and I don't think I've ever seen it myself.

I am not proposing a god to exist. I am positing the existence of an intelligence greater than yours. (Actually, that's easy - let's posit an intelligence greater than yours by many orders of magnitude or, if you prefer, an omniscient intelligence).Really now. Got any evidence? I'm very interested to hear it, and if this omniscient intelligence is actually real I'd certainly want to know about it.


Let's call it 'god, for the sake of argument - are you still an atheist?Yes, because I have not been convinced to believe in your idea of this god. Convince me it exists and I'll no longer be an atheist.


Oh purlease, round and round and round....I said at the start I've observed it, but that I have no intention of ploughing through threads looking for an example.
Dude, you came here and started out, in the very first post, claiming how athiests make a certain form of an argument, and then just now you say it happens a lot, but you can't be bothered to find just one example of it? Are you serious?

[jiggeryqua]

Sledge, as your use of 'slapped around' and 'a good kicking' suggested, you're not here to engage in intelligent debate, you're here like so many anonymous internet forum users to make yourself feel better. Good luck with that, but after this chore, I'll be disregarding your posts

I don't intend to "chum up" to anyone. I don't make friends over the internet. I have real friends for that. What I'm here for is intelligent discussion on topics my friends don't want to discuss, or at least not as much as I do. As for the newbie thing... how does me being a newbie invalidate my ability to recognise you are also one?
.
It doesn't. It does explain it, though, which is what I said it does.


This doesn't make any sense. Please rephrase it so as to accurately convey what you mean.
If you didn't understand it, go back to school.


Objection, your honour!

Below the belt, to use an idiom you're perhaps familiar with.


A rebuttal to what, exactly? The pattern here seems to be that you say something, people ask what you mean by that and you deny saying it. You want me to rebut you claiming that you didn't say what I did say what you plainly said? I'm not quite sure where such a circular argument could hope to go.
A rebuttal, clearly (to those that have eyes to see... :P ), to my contentious suggestion that nobody ever posted an argument so similar to my original post example as to be indistinguishable. Your pattern appears to be to pretend someone is something else, and then repeatedly, and with infuriatingly precise (and lamentably insulting) point-pinching, to address that imaginary being. Where do you hope that will get you?


Ah, so you're responding to stuff before reading it. Suddenly so much in this thread becomes clear.
Or you could use the "edit" button. Or even *GASP* read what people say before you start replying to it.
As you'll see, I did use the edit button. Noobs, eh - aren't they new! I didn't read 'post #47' for the reasons I pointed out. It turned out I had read it (I just foolishly failed to memorise all the post numbers - newbs, eh!), and responded to it, but you wouldn't let facts like that get in the way of a good internet scrap, eh?


So what HAD you hoped for? You're very clear on what you don't want... no, wait, that's not true. You keep saying that other people's interpretations of your posts aren't correct, so why not say as clearly and concisely as possible what your point is? My guess: because you're afraid it'll be shot down in about ten seconds.
UNH-UNH (that the Family Fortunes 'incorrect guess' noise - Family Feud for our american cousins). Clearly, I had hoped for 'better' than 'you sound like you're on meds' and 'fnar fnar he gave you a kicking' - you do concede that it is possible to do better than that? Not personally, perhaps, but generally.

[jiggeryqua]

Yes, because I have not been convinced to believe in your idea of this god. Convince me it exists and I'll no longer be an atheist.

You are not convinced that there is any intelligence greater than your own? Isn't that pretty much the example you claim I "can't be bothered to find"? I did say I'd flag it up if I saw it again. Here it is.


Dude, you came here and started out, in the very first post, claiming how athiests make a certain form of an argument, and then just now you say it happens a lot, but you can't be bothered to find just one example of it? Are you serious?

No, as I've addressed, some self-proclaimed atheists make that certain form of argument. It would take a separate thread to address your position that one atheist is all athiests, or vice versa, or that no atheists make mistaken arguments. I did say I couldn't be bothered to plough through posts to find an example, and repeatedly invited anyone to claim that it never happened. Fortuitously, you claimed it never happened and then provided your own example. Are you serious?

[Piscivore]

Dude, you came here and started out, in the very first post, claiming how athiests make a certain form of an argument, and then just now you say it happens a lot, but you can't be bothered to find just one example of it? Are you serious?

And even if an example is not found, "we have to at least concede that someone will". :oldroll:

[Malerin]

If someone believes in a god who is simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then the existence of all manner of suffering proves this god to be logically inconsistent and therefore to not exist. Epicurus figured that out thousands of years ago.

I'm not saying that I'm smarter than anything, I'm just saying that it's a logical impossibility.

Unless (A) the suffering in question results in a greater good or (B) preventing the suffering produces consequences worse than the suffering itself.

[Sledge]

Sledge, as your use of 'slapped around' and 'a good kicking' suggested, you're not here to engage in intelligent debate, you're here like so many anonymous internet forum users to make yourself feel better. Good luck with that, but after this chore, I'll be disregarding your postsNo, you won't. If you're going to ignore someone, ignore them. Don't waste time responding in great (if impenetrable) detail to them.
It doesn't. It does explain it, though, which is what I said it does.Gibberish.
If you didn't understand it, go back to school.Yeah, that explains what you mean. Even you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
Below the belt, to use an idiom you're perhaps familiar with.
Don't feed me a setup like that and expect to get away with it.
A rebuttal, clearly (to those that have eyes to see... :P ), to my contentious suggestion that nobody ever posted an argument so similar to my original post example as to be indistinguishable.A rebuttal to that is simple: no they didn't. Your task is now to prove me wrong. Go find someone posting that as their argument. It'll take you a while, because it's an argument you pulled out of your rear as something you wish atheists would say. Sadly, you've backed yourself into a no win situation. If you don't present such evidence, your arse pull is clear to all. If you do finally find something, we're left to wonder why you didn't present it in the first place. Why, it would almost be as if you made it up, then went looking for evidence to support your wild accusations! :eek: But then, that's religion all over.
Your pattern appears to be to pretend someone is something else, and then repeatedly, and with infuriatingly precise (and lamentably insulting) point-pinching, to address that imaginary being. Where do you hope that will get you?Example of this.
As you'll see, I did use the edit button. Noobs, eh - aren't they new!Do you want a medal for doing what I suggested you do? I'm sorry, but in the world of grownups, you don't get a gold star every morning for not wetting the bed.
I didn't read 'post #47' for the reasons I pointed out. It turned out I had read it (I just foolishly failed to memorise all the post numbers - newbs, eh!), and responded to it, but you wouldn't let facts like that get in the way of a good internet scrap, eh?You didn't know which post it was because you'd hammered the "quote" button before reading what you were replying to. I'm not sure what point you're trying to refute here, but it's nothing to do with what I said.
UNH-UNH (that the Family Fortunes 'incorrect guess' noise - Family Feud for our american cousins). Clearly, I had hoped for 'better' than 'you sound like you're on meds' and 'fnar fnar he gave you a kicking' - you do concede that it is possible to do better than that? Not personally, perhaps, but generally.
So again, what is it you want? Spell it out, make it clear, give us something to address.

[Myriad]

I am not proposing a god to exist. I am positing the existence of an intelligence greater than yours. (Actually, that's easy - let's posit an intelligence greater than yours by many orders of magnitude or, if you prefer, an omniscient intelligence). Let's call it 'god, for the sake of argument - are you still an atheist?

Yes, because I have not been convinced to believe in your idea of this god. Convince me it exists and I'll no longer be an atheist.

You are not convinced that there is any intelligence greater than your own? Isn't that pretty much the example you claim I "can't be bothered to find"? I did say I'd flag it up if I saw it again. Here it is.


Jiggeryqua, since you asked about names of logical fallacies earlier -- this one is called "equivocation."

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jiggeryqua]

And even if an example is not found, "we have to at least concede that someone will". :oldroll:

While yours is a short post, I'll allow that you took so much time composing it that the example provided by CurtC escaped your attention. Let's pretend he didn't provide it, then, and you can say why you believe that nobody would ever provide one. I may be wrong, but an infinite number of monkeys etc would come up with it sooner or later, no? It's irrelevant, of course, since it's been made frequently in here (oh...I see...it's like nationalism. If I say there was a post here where an atheist wasn't right, I'm attacking your very soul) and made most recently by CurtC. We didn't even need infinite monkeys.

If you really must pick on the word soul, start your own thread.

[jiggeryqua]

Bless, I see that Sledge is still at it.

Thank you, Myriad, though I believe you're mistaken. It may have been misleading to suggest calling an intelligence that is orders of magnitude greater than CurtC's 'god' (perhaps because that will summon a particular, if unintended, set of associations in his mind), but the fact remains that CurtC holds firmly to the position that there is no intelligence greater than his own. Call it what you will, he contends that it does not exist because he cannot conceive of it....'my intelligence cannot contain your posited intelligence, therefore I dispute its existence. If you wish me to believe it, somehow fit its quart of intelligence into my pint pot'.

There's the example, the apparant absence of which has mostly fueled this thread so far. Now perhaps you can all address it.

[Dunstan]

You're going to have to explain to me how your hypothetical argument:

"Omniscient God? My arse, have you seen what he's done and what he refuses to do? I'm pretty smart, at least I think I am, but I can't condone behaving like that, so how can an omniscient god?"

Is exemplified by this:

You are not convinced that there is any intelligence greater than your own? Isn't that pretty much the example you claim I "can't be bothered to find"? I did say I'd flag it up if I saw it again. Here it is.

CurtC can speak for himself, but you do realize that there is a difference between the following two statements:

(1) "I am not convinced that X exists."
(2) "I am convinced that X does not exist."

I have a bad feeling that you don't, which is why you keep insisting that you're not a theist while you continue to bash (hypothetical) atheists. I suspect we're in for round 623 of "strong vs. weak atheism; atheism vs. agnosticism"....

[Hokulele]

Unless (A) the suffering in question results in a greater good or (B) preventing the suffering produces consequences worse than the suffering itself.


In which case that god is not omnipotent, because it cannot a) deliver the greater good without the suffering, or b) it cannot prevent the worse consequences. Clearly something more powerful than this god is restricting it from certain actions.

[Piscivore]

While yours is a short post, I'll allow that you took so much time composing it that the example provided by CurtC escaped your attention. Let's pretend he didn't provide it,
Or, perhaps, you can quote exactly what he wrote that you claim is his example, and we can go from there. 'Cause I still don't see it.

...you can say why you believe that nobody would ever provide one.
Since I didn't say I believed that, I can't say why I do.

I may be wrong, but an infinite number of monkeys etc would come up with it sooner or later, no?
Are you under the impression there is an infinite number of monkeys on JREF?

It's irrelevant, of course, since it's been made frequently in here...
But you can't be arsed to find one.

(oh...I see...it's like nationalism. If I say there was a post here where an atheist wasn't right, I'm attacking your very soul)
The fallacy you use here is appeal to motive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive).

[Pythonic]

Although most ad hominems are personal attacks, an ad hominem fallacy...
Well, actually, "the ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument." Just a technical point.

[Hokulele]

I have a bad feeling that you don't, which is why you keep insisting that you're not a theist while you continue to bash (hypothetical) atheists. I suspect we're in for round 623 of "strong vs. weak atheism; atheism vs. agnosticism"....


Jiggeryqua has already covered that in another thread.


And to the discussion around CurtC's example, there is a big difference between being able to conceive something that is definitionally possible and failing to believe in it and being unable to conceive something that is definitionally impossible and failing to believe in it.

I can conceive a snail that grows a 30m diameter shell and feeds solely on roofing tar, but I won't believe in it until I see evidence for it.

I can't conceive a four-sided triangle because by definition it is impossible and I won't believe in it. Any evidence you show for this, I will call a trapezoid (rectangle, rhombus, whatever).

[Hokulele]

Well, actually, "the ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument." Just a technical point.


True enough.

For some reason, this thread seems to encourage the sloppy use of language...

[Myriad]

Thank you, Myriad, though I believe you're mistaken. It may have been misleading to suggest calling an intelligence that is orders of magnitude greater than CurtC's 'god' (perhaps because that will summon a particular, if unintended, set of associations in his mind), but the fact remains that CurtC holds firmly to the position that there is no intelligence greater than his own. Call it what you will, he contends that it does not exist because he cannot conceive of it....'my intelligence cannot contain your posited intelligence, therefore I dispute its existence. If you wish me to believe it, somehow fit its quart of intelligence into my pint pot'.


I refer to this example as "bearing false witness against thy neighbor." I am not an atheist myself, so rather than regard it as any sort of logical fallacy I regard it as a violation of one of God's Commandments and a sin. Since of course CurtC claimed or contended no such thing, as is obvious to anyone reading the posts in question.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jiggeryqua]

Piscivore, you're being as pugnacious and pernickety as Sledge, and I may well decide to disregard your insistence on looking at this discussion as a competition as well. Meanwhile, I could quote CurtC or you could read him - go read him, you lazy sod. No, I "can't be arsed" to dig an example out - we've been round and round that, but here we go again. I don't care to, it would be more work than I relish and it would be unnecessary unless you contend (yawn) that it has never happened. I did promise to flag up an example. It has since happened, and I have flagged it up - and no, I won't quote it, go and read it you lazy arse. No, I don't suppose the imaginary infinite monkeys all post on jref - silly boy. I did think it was quite amusing to snidely compare CurtC to one of them though - perhaps I was caught up in the spirit of jref exemplified by Sledge and yourself in this thread....and yes, I did posit an explaination of your knee-jerk response in terms of nationalism, but I'm wide open to a better explanation.

[jiggeryqua]

I refer to this example as "bearing false witness against thy neighbor." I am not an atheist myself, so rather than regard it as any sort of logical fallacy I regard it as a violation of one of God's Commandments and a sin. Since of course CurtC claimed or contended no such thing, as is obvious to anyone reading the posts in question.

Respectfully,
Myriad


"Convince me it exists and I'll no longer be an atheist.", said CurtC, of my suggestion that there might be an intelligence greater than his. I don't think it's unfair to argue that he does not believe in the existence of an intelligence greater than his own. It also stands to reason that he cannot be convinced of a quart of intelligence, because everything that slops over the side of his pint pot will be dismissed as outside his intelligence.

[jsfisher]

ad hominem, right? I'm getting the hang of this...

Not quite. Drkitten commented on what you wrote, not you.

'Alabama is not a football team' was a jocular aside from the home of football, a game which has been bastardised beyond recognition by a country without the imagination to come up with a new name for a new game. The example was your example, by the way, which is why I consider your calling it my argument to be a strawman.

Ah! There you go. That's a fine example of an ad hominem. By the way, do you know when the two games of American football and soccer where each invented?

[Malerin]

In which case that god is not omnipotent, because it cannot a) deliver the greater good without the suffering, or b) it cannot prevent the worse consequences. Clearly something more powerful than this god is restricting it from certain actions.

Forget for a minute omnipotence is still being argued about http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/#2

It could be argued by a theist that free will is a good thing (in the same way suffering is a bad thing), and there are no possible worlds at all where beings with free will do not occasionaly cause each other to suffer. That would mean a world with free beings and no suffering is a metaphysical impossibility, and not really a limit on God's power.

The theist is in a tougher spot explaining away suffering from natural events (earthquakes, fires, etc.) and animal suffering.

[Yoink]

"Convince me it exists and I'll no longer be an atheist.", said CurtC, of my suggestion that there might be an intelligence greater than his. I don't think it's unfair to argue that he does not believe in the existence of an intelligence greater than his own. It also stands to reason that he cannot be convinced of a quart of intelligence, because everything that slops over the side of his pint pot will be dismissed as outside his intelligence.

Um, here's what CurtC was replying to (the statement is yours):
I am not proposing a god to exist. I am positing the existence of an intelligence greater than yours. (Actually, that's easy - let's posit an intelligence greater than yours by many orders of magnitude or, if you prefer, an omniscient intelligence). Let's call it 'god, for the sake of argument - are you still an atheist?

You seem to have forgotten that you added all that stuff in the parenthesis.

CurtC is denying the existence of "an omniscient intelligence"--not "an intelligence greater than [his]."

[jiggeryqua]

Not quite. Drkitten commented on what you wrote, not you.
No, he said that similar writing had deserved psychoactive drugs, or something to that effect. That was a comment about his preferred imagining of me, and not the content of what I wrote.


Ah! There you go. That's a fine example of an ad hominem. By the way, do you know when the two games of American football and soccer where each invented?

A joke at the expense of the most powerful nation on earth is neither racist nor an ad hominem attack on drkitten. I don't know when American football, 'soccer' or rugby football were 'invented' (I suspect tribal peoples were kicking heads around long before either England or America came into being), but I do know that both are continually revised. I do know that you appear to know, but "couldn't be arsed" to say, any more than I can be arsed to look it up. I know that feet rarely come into play with the ball in 'American' football, and I know that I shall continue to hold the position that the American game should find a proper name, since it's clearly inferior to what the vast majority of the world know to be 'football'.

[Hokulele]

Forget for a minute omnipotence is still being argued about http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/#2


OK.

It could be argued by a theist that free will is a good thing (in the same way suffering is a bad thing), and there are no possible worlds at all where beings with free will do not occasionaly cause each other to suffer. That would mean a world with free beings and no suffering is a metaphysical impossibility, and not really a limit on God's power.

The theist is in a tougher spot explaining away suffering from natural events (earthquakes, fires, etc.) and animal suffering.


Agreed, it could be argued this way, but then we get to have yet another 50 page thread on free will instead of on omnipotence. :D

[ElightenMe]

"Convince me it exists and I'll no longer be an atheist.", said CurtC, of my suggestion that there might be an intelligence greater than his. I don't think it's unfair to argue that he does not believe in the existence of an intelligence greater than his own. It also stands to reason that he cannot be convinced of a quart of intelligence, because everything that slops over the side of his pint pot will be dismissed as outside his intelligence.

I'm pretty convinced you're confusing what CurtC is saying. You posited the greater intelligence as god. He is asking you to produce a convincing argument of god.

IMO I think you're confusing the (supposed) atheist argument of, "I cannot conceive of an omniscient god", with "I cannot conceive of an omniscient god that is also both omnibenevolent and omnipotent." The latter is no fallacy because it has not been proven possible it is as such a "four-sided triangle."
An omniscient god however, is conceivable but not convincing (to atheists).

[jiggeryqua]

Um, here's what CurtC was replying to (the statement is yours):


You seem to have forgotten that you added all that stuff in the parenthesis.


You just quoted it, right there! And yet you seem to have forgotten that I said "an omniscient god, if you prefer. If CurtC goes on to claim that he's refuting what he prefers to posit, well, there's no real harm in that I suppose. Of course, an omniscient god is necessarily more knowing than CurtC, and he's stated that he doesn't believe in such a thing.


CurtC is denying the existence of "an omniscient intelligence"--not "an intelligence greater than [his]."

Perhaps he is, though it's particularly odious of him to take me up on that offer in that way. Suppose then that we allow for intelligences greater than CurtC's, but not capable of knowing everything. The problem of demonstrating its existence (should it exist) to CurtC remains the same - he has a pint pot - an intelligence even a fluid ounce less than 'omniscient' still won't fit it - and he is still a fine example of what I described in the opening post.

[ElightenMe]

Forget for a minute omnipotence is still being argued about http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/#2

It could be argued by a theist that free will is a good thing (in the same way suffering is a bad thing), and there are no possible worlds at all where beings with free will do not occasionaly cause each other to suffer. That would mean a world with free beings and no suffering is a metaphysical impossibility, and not really a limit on God's power.

The theist is in a tougher spot explaining away suffering from natural events (earthquakes, fires, etc.) and animal suffering.

I think you're wrong there.

[Myriad]

"Convince me it exists and I'll no longer be an atheist.", said CurtC, of my suggestion that there might be an intelligence greater than his.


Your suggestion explicitly posited that the greater intelligence be orders of magnitude greater than his, and omniscient.

I don't think it's unfair to argue that he does not believe in the existence of an intelligence greater than his own.


It is very unfair, and dishonest. He said that he does not believe in the existence of an intelligence orders of magnitude greater than his that is omniscient. Furthermore he clearly explained that the reason he does not believe it is because you have not presented any evidence of such. Your misrepresentations to the contrary are highly distasteful.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[truethat]

If you could so kindly provide a link to someone actually saying this, it would help. If I heard someone saying this, I'd think he's terribly confused, because omniscience and acting in a morally upright way are not the same concept.

I'd call it a non-sequitur fallacy. The implied premise that God would act morally does not follow from the idea of omniscience.

Sure, theologians are thinkers. Just like someone can furiously think through the idea of a perfect unicorn. They're just avoiding seeing a big problem in their thinking.




The idea that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent is quite commonly worded that way. A nice shorthand is "tri-omni."

I agree with this, the straw man is not really the right term.

To presume that omiscience and morality are the same thing or related in some way is ridiculous.

They are also leaping from "KNOWING ALL" to controlling all. And so the argument hasn't followed all the way through.

Also God is not omniscience and all powerful because otherwise he'd have no regrets. The bible clearly shows several occasions where God expresses regret.

[jiggeryqua]

I'm pretty convinced you're confusing what CurtC is saying. You posited the greater intelligence as god. He is asking you to produce a convincing argument of god.

Where 'god' has been defined as 'a significantly greater intelligence than CurtC'. CurtC is asking me to produce a convincing argument that there is a greater intelligence than his own, but to demonstrate it would require a quart (or thereabouts) to be fitted into his pint pot


IMO I think you're confusing the (supposed) atheist argument of, "I cannot conceive of an omniscient god", with "I cannot conceive of an omniscient god that is also both omnibenevolent and omnipotent." The latter is no fallacy because it has not been proven possible it is as such a "four-sided triangle."
An omniscient god however, is conceivable but not convincing (to atheists).

No, I am not, though I concede my opening post included that argument, which has been touched on and effectively dealt with, at least to my satisfaction, such that I'm not the one harping on about it.

[PixyMisa]

"Convince me it exists and I'll no longer be an atheist.", said CurtC, of my suggestion that there might be an intelligence greater than his. I don't think it's unfair to argue that he does not believe in the existence of an intelligence greater than his own. It also stands to reason that he cannot be convinced of a quart of intelligence, because everything that slops over the side of his pint pot will be dismissed as outside his intelligence.
Yes, it is unfair, because that's not what he said. That's a strawman.

No, it does not stand to reason. That's a non-sequitur.

I'm not convinced that the study of logical fallacies by committing as many of them as possible is really the best approach.

[jiggeryqua]

Your suggestion explicitly posited that the greater intelligence be orders of magnitude greater than his, and omniscient.
omniscient, if he preferred. He didn't make his choice clear. As to orders of magnitude, well, we're splitting hairs - can we agree that CurtC believes there are humans more intelligent than him, but nothing more intelligent than humans? Let's ask him, although since you're 'fighting in his corner', to adopt an apparantly forum-appropriate metaphor, I'll ask you too.

I've conceded that labelling it 'god' probably caused a knee-jerk 'I don't believe in god' response, but let's grant him sufficient intelligence and wisdom to have overcome that. He wants to be convinced there is no quart, and the only evidence he will accept is to see it in his pint pot.




It is very unfair, and dishonest. Your misrepresentations to the contrary are highly distasteful.

Respectfully,
Myriad

It is neither, and my assertions are not. CurtC refuses to accept the existence of a quart, because he has a pint pot and will only be convinced by someone fitting a quart into it.

[dasmiller]

CurtC is asking me to produce a convincing argument that there is a greater intelligence than his own, but to demonstrate it would require a quart (or thereabouts) to be fitted into his pint pot

Why do you believe that? Do you consider it to be self-evident?

[Malerin]

I think you're wrong there.

Possibly, but we don't know. To argue an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent being is logically impossible (or incoherent), you would have to know for sure that it's possible to create beings with free will who never cause suffering to each other. We're not in a position to know that. If it is impossible for free beings to never cause each other to sufer (and free will exists and is a good thing), then an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent being and suffering could coexist.

When I was taking philosophy 15 years ago, the arguments against God had become more probabilistic: the existence of suffering makes it highly unlikely God exists.

[dasmiller]

I'm not convinced that the study of logical fallacies by committing as many of them as possible is really the best approach.

well said!

[PixyMisa]

Where 'god' has been defined as 'a significantly greater intelligence than CurtC'.
When is a quote not a quote? When it's not a quote.

I am positing the existence of an intelligence greater than yours. (Actually, that's easy - let's posit an intelligence greater than yours by many orders of magnitude or, if you prefer, an omniscient intelligence). Let's call it 'god, for the sake of argument - are you still an atheist?

That is a quote.

CurtC is asking me to produce a convincing argument that there is a greater intelligence than his own, but to demonstrate it would require a quart (or thereabouts) to be fitted into his pint pot
Bare assertion fallacy.

[tsig]

I'd hoped for something better.

Good thing we're not here to live up to your expectations then innint.

[jiggeryqua]

Yes, it is unfair, because that's not what he said. That's a strawman.

No, it does not stand to reason. That's a non-sequitur.

I'm not convinced that the study of logical fallacies by committing as many of them as possible is really the best approach.

The part in quotation marks is a direct quote, the rest is an entirely reasonable summary. Reasonable, if you reasonably carry over the silent 'by an order of magnitude (such that it might be termed god)' that I quite reasonably didn't type over and over again after establishing it. CurtC does not believe in an intelligence greater than his <by an order of magnitude (such that it might be termed god)>. It still stands to reason that he cannot be convinced of such a thing because his own meagre human intelligence cannot comprehend it. You cannot get a quart in a pint pot.

I'm not convinced that any discussion is advanced by insisting that there are only two sides, and that anyone sounding suspiciously unlike 'your' side must be on the other side, and thus be harried with wilful disunderstanding.

[jiggeryqua]

Why do you believe that? Do you consider it to be self-evident?

That an inferior intelligence might demand a superior intelligence 'prove' itself by demonstrating to the inferior intelligence something that it cannot understand? And that in the light of that failure to understand, the inferior intelligence might claim that what it does not understand is not 'intelligence' at all? Yes, I do - it's evident often, you should get out more. Or stay here, for that matter, just pay more attention.

[ElightenMe]

[QUOTE=jiggeryqua;5486940]omniscient, if he preferred. He didn't make his choice clear. As to orders of magnitude, well, we're splitting hairs - can we agree that CurtC believes there are humans more intelligent than him, but nothing more intelligent than humans? Let's ask him, although since you're 'fighting in his corner', to adopt an apparantly forum-appropriate metaphor, I'll ask you too.
QUOTE]

I disagree, you didn't make the question clear. You posited a greater intelligence, which could or could not be god and could or could not be omniscient; then asked if he believed it existed, specifically.
There are multiple answers.

[ElightenMe]

Possibly, but we don't know. To argue an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent being is logically impossible (or incoherent), you would have to know for sure that it's possible to create beings with free will who never cause suffering to each other. We're not in a position to know that. If it is impossible for free beings to never cause each other to sufer (and free will exists and is a good thing), then an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent being and suffering could coexist.

When I was taking philosophy 15 years ago, the arguments against God had become more probabilistic: the existence of suffering makes it highly unlikely God exists.

Now, that I prefer. :D

[Dunstan]

CurtC does not believe in an intelligence greater than his <by an order of magnitude (such that it might be termed god)>. It still stands to reason that he cannot be convinced of such a thing because his own meagre human intelligence cannot comprehend it. You cannot get a quart in a pint pot.

You do not need to fully comprehend something in order to be convinced of its existence. I am convinced that my television works, even though I don't understand exactly how it works. Richard Feynmann famously said that nobody really understands quantum mechanics.

[dasmiller]

It still stands to reason that he cannot be convinced of such a thing because his own meagre human intelligence cannot comprehend it. You cannot get a quart in a pint pot.

Many of us do not understand this line of reasoning, and "it still stands to reason" is not convincing for us. Does this apply only to CurtC or to everyone?

ETA - crossing posts, this may be OBE

[tsig]

I am not proposing a god to exist. I am positing the existence of an intelligence greater than yours. (Actually, that's easy - let's posit an intelligence greater than yours by many orders of magnitude or, if you prefer, an omniscient intelligence). Let's call it 'god, for the sake of argument - are you still an atheist?



.

You went from"I am not proposing a god" to "Let's call it 'god" in one paragraph. Does your left hand know what your right hand is doing?

[dasmiller]

That an inferior intelligence might demand a superior intelligence 'prove' itself by demonstrating to the inferior intelligence something that it cannot understand? And that in the light of that failure to understand, the inferior intelligence might claim that what it does not understand is not 'intelligence' at all? Yes, I do - it's evident often, you should get out more. Or stay here, for that matter, just pay more attention.

You went from two "might"s to "cannot"

[PixyMisa]

The part in quotation marks is a direct quote, the rest is an entirely reasonable summary. Reasonable, if you reasonably carry over the silent 'by an order of magnitude (such that it might be termed god)' that I quite reasonably didn't type over and over again after establishing it.
No, it is not a reasonably accurate summary. You will note that CurtC explicitly responded to your positing of an omniscient entity. Your response in turn is a strawman, an attempt to shift the burden of proof, a non-sequitur, a bare assertion fallacy, an argument from personal incredulity and an ad-hominem attack all rolled into one.

CurtC does not believe in an intelligence greater than his <by an order of magnitude (such that it might be termed god)>.
Strawman.

It still stands to reason that he cannot be convinced of such a thing because his own meagre human intelligence cannot comprehend it. You cannot get a quart in a pint pot.
Attempt to shift the burden of proof, bare assertion fallacy, ad hominem, non-sequitur, argument from personal incredulity.

I'm not convinced that any discussion is advanced by insisting that there are only two sides, and that anyone sounding suspiciously unlike 'your' side must be on the other side, and thus be harried with wilful disunderstanding.
I'm not convinced that your haphazard collections of logical fallacies can reasonably be described as an argument. So we have something in common.

[Yoink]

The part in quotation marks is a direct quote, the rest is an entirely reasonable summary. Reasonable, if you reasonably carry over the silent 'by an order of magnitude (such that it might be termed god)' that I quite reasonably didn't type over and over again after establishing it. CurtC does not believe in an intelligence greater than his <by an order of magnitude (such that it might be termed god)>. It still stands to reason that he cannot be convinced of such a thing because his own meagre human intelligence cannot comprehend it. You cannot get a quart in a pint pot.

I'm not convinced that any discussion is advanced by insisting that there are only two sides, and that anyone sounding suspiciously unlike 'your' side must be on the other side, and thus be harried with wilful disunderstanding.

Jiggeryqua, it seems that your argument is that if God exists it would be impossible for beings of finite understanding to comprehend his existence. That's a possible but unprovable claim. By the very terms of your claim, God's existence would be unknowable and unprovable.

There are vanishingly few atheists in the world who hold that the existence of a god or gods in general can be disproved. The atheist position is simply that in the absence of any proof of the existence of a god or gods, it is pointless to believe in them. You posit a god whose existence is, by definition, unprovable to human beings. There is no reason for any atheist to believe in that god, even if any reasonable atheist will accept that the potential existence of that god cannot be disproven.

All of which is to say that you're dragging out the invisible pink unicorn for the umpteen billionth time. Yes it's possible that an invisible pink unicorn lives in my garage, but if its existence is by definition undiscoverable there can be no reason for me to assume that it exists. The same goes for fairies, trolls, leprechauns, ghosts, wilis etc. etc. etc. Of course I cannot prove them to be nonexistent, but until such time as someone offers proof of their existence I might as well treat them all as "non existent." If I grant existence to every "possible" but "unknown" being I can think of, then there can be no end to that process.

[Yoink]

By the bye, Jiggeryqua, you're cooking up a nice little paradox here. If the God you posit is supposed to be TriOmni, then you're arguing that an omnipotent god is incapable of proving His existence to any being who is not Himself.

Where's your omnipotence now?

But, of course, the only Omni you seem wedded to is Omniscience (not, apparently, that you are aware what the word means...).

[jiggeryqua]

You went from"I am not proposing a god" to "Let's call it 'god" in one paragraph. Does your left hand know what your right hand is doing?

Pish and tosh - it was posited for the sake of argument. I am not proposing that there is a god - I am, however, quite prepared to posit a god for the sake of argument (by which I mean intelligent intercourse aimed at some mutual beneficial advancement of understanding, rather than 'a slapping around' and 'a good kicking', as some poster here prefer). It was devilish (tricky word, try to get over it), let's say mischievous, to suggest calling an intelligence greater than CurtC's <by an order of magnitude (such that it might be called 'god')> 'god', and perhaps that's why he insists he doesn't believe in it. Maybe he is happy to believe in an intelligence greater than his <by an order of magnitude> so long as nobody calls it 'god'. In that case, he merely needs to be convinced that it doesn't really matter what you call it, but if that is the case he's clearly not intelligent enough to get that either.

Dasmiller, I've said it's impossible to get a quart of intelligence into a pint pot human brain. It may not be so, but it certainly seems that way - even without the obvious impossibility inherent in the metaphor, it still stands to reason that you cannot comprehend something which you cannot comprehend. There are things I don't know (cue Sledge: 'No kidding!'), but I am convinced that someone else knows them. I am equally convinced that I could either learn them or accept that they are outside my abilities. But television is not broadcast by people with intelligence greater than mine <by any order of magnitude>. God is not television, though television may take the place of god for some.

As it is, the original contention was that some people take the position that a quart does not exist because they cannot be shown it in their pint pot. If you've never met one...well, follow the advice above. Note, 'some' people. To point out that some self-proclaimed atheists aren't terribly bright is not an attack on all atheists - do me a favour, go back and challenge everyone who made that mistake...once again, I can't be arsed....

[Bikewer]

It seems we have been around this particular tree more than a few times before. I recall a thread where the theist eventually retreated to a point where his "god" existed outside of time and space and was essentially unknowable.

Which of course raises the question of how this might be different from there being no god at all....
We're having much the same argument on another forum with an ID proponent. The fellow refuses to identify the "designer" or assign any attributes to it whatever. Yet he won't retreat from the position that the universe must have been "designed".

Again you'd wonder... If there were some totally unknowable "designer"....How would this affect our lives? This was the idea posited by Deists, who couldn't figure any way for the universe to exist other than by some divine activity, yet admitted there was no evidence whatever of any interaction by this deity with humanity.

[tsig]

Where 'god' has been defined as 'a significantly greater intelligence than CurtC'. CurtC is asking me to produce a convincing argument that there is a greater intelligence than his own, but to demonstrate it would require a quart (or thereabouts) to be fitted into his pint pot





But your mind is bigger than ours and is easily able to contain god?

[jiggeryqua]

By the bye, Jiggeryqua, you're cooking up a nice little paradox here. If the God you posit is supposed to be TriOmni, then you're arguing that an omnipotent god is incapable of proving His existence to any being who is not Himself.

Where's your omnipotence now?

But, of course, the only Omni you seem wedded to is Omniscience (not, apparently, that you are aware what the word means...).

Do try to follow the thread before joining in. I'm not a theist, I'm not proposing a triomni god, I merely invited CurtC to spasm at the idea that we refer to a putative intelligence greater than his <by any order of magnitude> as 'god'. We could call it 'Geoff' if you, or he, preferred.

You did appear to read some of the thread (those bits where it was suggested that I didn't know what omnscient meant), but not those bits where I pointed out that I did, pointed out the detachment punctuation (repeatedly) and showed that I'd suggested that someone else considered themselves 'more' omnisicient - not that I thought such a thing could exist.

C-, must try harder.

[Yoink]

Pish and tosh - it was posited for the sake of argument. I am not proposing that there is a god - I am, however, quite prepared to posit a god for the sake of argument (by which I mean intelligent intercourse aimed at some mutual beneficial advancement of understanding, rather than 'a slapping around' and 'a good kicking', as some poster here prefer). It was devilish (tricky word, try to get over it), let's say mischievous, to suggest calling an intelligence greater than CurtC's <by an order of magnitude (such that it might be called 'god')> 'god', and perhaps that's why he insists he doesn't believe in it. Maybe he is happy to believe in an intelligence greater than his <by an order of magnitude> so long as nobody calls it 'god'. In that case, he merely needs to be convinced that it doesn't really matter what you call it, but if that is the case he's clearly not intelligent enough to get that either.

You seem to be incapable of seeing that you threw in the word "omniscient." You posited, for the sake of this argument, an OMNISCIENT being. There was no "devilishly cunning" trap here--you posited a being called "god" who had one of the absolutely normal attributes of beings described as "god"--omniscience. CurtC reasonably said that he won't believe in the existence of a being with such a divine attribute until sufficient evidence is forthcoming.

[Yoink]

Do try to follow the thread before joining in. I'm not a theist, I'm not proposing a triomni god, I merely invited CurtC to spasm at the idea that we refer to a putative intelligence greater than his <by any order of magnitude> as 'god'. We could call it 'Geoff' if you, or he, preferred.

You did appear to read some of the thread (those bits where it was suggested that I didn't know what omnscient meant), but not those bits where I pointed out that I did, pointed out the detachment punctuation (repeatedly) and showed that I'd suggested that someone else considered themselves 'more' omnisicient - not that I thought such a thing could exist.

C-, must try harder.

Add "posit" to the list of words you need to look up (along with "apologetics" and "omniscient").

[Sledge]

Always nice to see I've got under someone's skin in such a short space of time. Reassuring to find that cutting through the proverbial male bovine excrement really annoys the windup merchants.

Anyhoo, I see we've moved from "hey, I'm just asking what this is called" to argument that there is a god. Oh, accept he's not actually saying that, he's just putting that forward for the sake of argument. What argument? We still don't know. Isn't this the technique referred to as "JAQing off"? Makes me wish I'd made popcorn before this started.

[ElightenMe]

It seems we have been around this particular tree more than a few times before. I recall a thread where the theist eventually retreated to a point where his "god" existed outside of time and space and was essentially unknowable.

Which of course raises the question of how this might be different from there being no god at all....
We're having much the same argument on another forum with an ID proponent. The fellow refuses to identify the "designer" or assign any attributes to it whatever. Yet he won't retreat from the position that the universe must have been "designed".

Again you'd wonder... If there were some totally unknowable "designer"....How would this affect our lives? This was the idea posited by Deists, who couldn't figure any way for the universe to exist other than by some divine activity, yet admitted there was no evidence whatever of any interaction by this deity with humanity.

Whoa, back up a few steps. jiggeryqua never (intentionally) argued FOR the existence of god. He argued that some people might not have the capability to conceive of an omniscient god. Although it has occasionally tipped towards arguing that some people cannot believe the impossible is possible, thanks to bad definitions and explanations.

[jiggeryqua]

Add "posit" to the list of words you need to look up (along with "apologetics" and "omniscient").

well if you'd been following, you'd see that I did look up apologists, though nobody ever explained how they are seperate from theologians. We've also established, over and over, that I know what omniscient means but that I was referring to people who didn't when I used (and detached myself from) the expression 'more' omnisicent. I did look up posit, just to be sure, and I'm happy with one of the definitions I got. You do understand that dictionaries don't limit how words are used, they record usage and are necessarily out of date? As a word it worked fine where I used it, if you weren't merely looking for ways to throw stones at someone who sounds suspiciously like he's on the 'other' side. Go look up 'disunderstanding', by the way - I'm pretty sure I just invented it, but I can't be arsed to check. I trust you're capable of gathering the implied meaning, though you've give me reason to doubt you'll admit it.

[dasmiller]

Dasmiller, I've said it's impossible to get a quart of intelligence into a pint pot human brain. It may not be so, but it certainly seems that way - even without the obvious impossibility inherent in the metaphor, it still stands to reason that you cannot comprehend something which you cannot comprehend.

I'll grant the tautology, but I don't grant that it's impossible to comprehend a greater intelligence. Intelligence has many aspects, and some of which are easily demonstrable - doing math problems in ones head, for example, or memorizing lists of words. I can certainly comprehend the possibility of someone being better than I at those things. For example, I can certainly imagine somebody correctly doing complex divisions in her head much more quckly and accurately than I.

So I don't consider it self-evident that it's impossible to demonstrate superior intelligence to someone of lesser intelligence.

There are things I don't know (cue Sledge: 'No kidding!'), but I am convinced that someone else knows them. I am equally convinced that I could either learn them or accept that they are outside my abilities. But television is not broadcast by people with intelligence greater than mine <by any order of magnitude>. God is not television, though television may take the place of god for some.

I evidently missed a step here. How did we get onto television?

As it is, the original contention was that some people take the position that a quart does not exist because they cannot be shown it in their pint pot. If you've never met one...well, follow the advice above

That would be the helpful "get out more" advice?

To the best of my knowledge, no, I've never met one. I don't believe that I've met anyone who honestly believed himself to be the most intelligent being in the universe.

Note, 'some' people.

Noted. And you believe that CurtC falls into that category because he said that he hadn't seen evidence for an omniscient being?

To point out that some self-proclaimed atheists aren't terribly bright is not an attack on all atheists - do me a favour, go back and challenge everyone who made that mistake...once again, I can't be arsed....

Is this still directed at me? You didn't quote anyone else, but I'm having trouble relating this to anything I've said.

[shadron]

Now, if you actually represented the argument the atheists made properly, it wouldn't necessarily be fallacious. Tradition ascribes to God three key attributes : omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence.

It may be germane to note that the "three O's" traditionally were omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence (see, for example, http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/omni.pdf, or http://www.ltbs.org/magazine/vol002_p10-11.pdf). Omnibenevolence has always been a fourth member of the gang, but traditionally has been held as separate from the others. It is of no matter, as almost any three of these four leads to contraditon (as in omniscience plus omnipotence, as since he knows everything that will ever happen he is no longer able to change any of it), though not as easily as when omnibenevolence is admitted. Yea, the simple requirement of omniscience leads to the problem of lack of free will and the pre-election of those who will go to heaven, a major stumbling block in protestant theology. There are, of course, no end to the rationalizations that are put forth to explain these "seeming" contradictions (as in the aforementioned links).

[Yoink]

To the best of my knowledge, no, I've never met one. I don't believe that I've met anyone who honestly believed himself to be the most intelligent being in the universe.

I don't know about "honestly," but wouldn't jiggeryqua be logically constrained by his argument to hold that he is the most intelligent being in the universe? I mean, if a quart can't fit in a pint pot by the same token a half teaspoon can't fit in a quarter teaspoon. Whatever the measure of jiggeryqua's intellect, he presumably is incapable of understanding that there are intellects greater than his. I must say, his conduct in this thread is pretty impressive evidence to that effect.

[jiggeryqua]

Dasmiller, you're becoming as tiresome as Sledge.

"So I don't consider it self-evident that it's impossible to demonstrate superior intelligence to someone of lesser intelligence. "

Not what I said. It is impossible to comprehend what you cannot comprehend. The intelligence under discussion is <of any order of magnitude> greater than human. Nobody is disputing that some humans are more intelligent than others (though some appear to be disputing that any atheist is unintelligent).


"I evidently missed a step here. How did we get onto television?"

I believe you raised it, but maybe somebody else did and you couldn't be arsed to read their post.



"That would be the helpful "get out more" advice?"

Yup - or stay here and pay attention, as I said.

"To the best of my knowledge, no, I've never met one. I don't believe that I've met anyone who honestly believed himself to be the most intelligent being in the universe."

Nor I - though we do see examples of people who believe that there is no intelligence greater than theirs <by an order of magnitude (such as it might be termed 'god')>. So you've met, here or elsewhere, one or more of those, no?

"And you believe that CurtC falls into that category because he said that he hadn't seen evidence for an omniscient being?"

Yes. He does. Or he misrepresented himself, I suppose.


"Is this still directed at me? You didn't quote anyone else, but I'm having trouble relating this to anything I've said."

Try harder.

[Yoink]

"And you believe that CurtC falls into that category because he said that he hadn't seen evidence for an omniscient being?"

Yes. He does. Or he misrepresented himself, I suppose.

How on earth does a refusal to believe, without evidence, in an omniscient being equate to a refusal to believe in any being more intelligent than oneself? Like CurtC I do not believe that an omniscient being exists, but I readily concede that there are many people in the world (and some who post regularly here at the JREF forums) who are more intelligent than me. Could you point out the logical error you think I'm making?

And while you're at it, could you try to formulate some kind of reply to post #111?

[jiggeryqua]

How on earth does a refusal to believe, without evidence, in an omniscient being equate to a refusal to believe in any being more intelligent than oneself? Like CurtC I do not believe that an omniscient being exists, but I readily concede that there are many people in the world (and some who post regularly here at the JREF forums) who are more intelligent than me. Could you point out the logical error you think I'm making?

And while you're at it, could you try to formulate some kind of reply to post #111?

The error you're making in is wilfully and blindly confusing "more intelligent by orders of magnitude such as it might be called 'god'" with 'merely more intelligent'. I've conceded what you've conceded, and I've repeated ad nauseum that that is not what I'm saying. Not 'really intelligent for a human', but 'more intelligent than any human by orders of magnitude such that it might be called god'.

[Yoink]

The error you're making in is wilfully and blindly confusing "more intelligent by orders of magnitude such as it might be called 'god'" with 'merely more intelligent'. I've conceded what you've conceded, and I've repeated ad nauseum that that is not what I'm saying. Not 'really intelligent for a human', but 'more intelligent than any human by orders of magnitude such that it might be called god'.

What you write here is utterly and completely irrelevant to the situation. CurtC made reference solely to an omniscient being (the being you posited in the post to which CurtC was replying). You are claiming that because CurtC said that he would not believe in an omniscient being without evidence that that somehow logically entails a refusal to believe in any being more intelligent than himself. This is a false and absurd statement.

ETA: I assume you can find no way whatsoever to rebut the statement made in post #111, which is why you just ignore its existence?

[jiggeryqua]

And while you're at it, could you try to formulate some kind of reply to post #111?

Scrolled back, had a look, it contained the expression 'the atheist position', so no, I shan't bother to reply to it. I confess, I fail to see any point in tsig saying I 'prefer' arses, if a homophobic jibe wasn't the intention. Someone else introduced the phrase 'can't be arsed' in this thread, though I'd freely admitted I had no intention of shifting mine to dig up an example - luckily, I'd predicted one sooner or later and it arrived sooner, right here. Homophobic or not, it was certainly scraping the bottom (groan) of the barrel, eh?

Enlightenme, I do speak myself, I was speaking for myself, and your suggestion that I should so is irrelevant, redundant and apparantly born of a desire for conflict rather than a shared understanding.

Dasmiller and yoinks, the fact that you've said nothing to convince me I'm wrong (not least because you've barely addressed it, preferring to make snide remarks) doesn't equate to my believing my intellect is superior. To use an analogy, claiming to have a quart but refusing to show it to me because you insist I have a pint pot is interesting, momentarily and in context, but doesn't convince me of your superior intelligence.

[jiggeryqua]

What you write here is utterly and completely irrelevant to the situation. CurtC made reference solely to an omniscient being (the being you posited in the post to which CurtC was replying). You are claiming that because CurtC said that he would not believe in an omniscient being without evidence that that somehow logically entails a refusal to believe in any being more intelligent than himself. This is a false and absurd statement.

ETA: I assume you can find no way whatsoever to rebut the statement made in post #111, which is why you just ignore its existence?

I addressed it's existence - not doing it within an acceptable time frame for you doesn't lead to the conclusion you've suggested. You're not as bright as you'd like us to believe, that much is clear, or you'd not need to stoop so low. Your false and absurd statement is just that yes, and just yours. There's probably a label for the behaviour of continually pretending that something hasn't been explained to you over and over again (I'm going to assume for a moment that it's not simply a case of you being incapable of understanding the explanation, let me know if that is however the case). "an intelligence greater than himself <by an order of magnitude (such as we might call it 'god')>". It is not a false or absurd statement to say that that is what CurtC denied.

[Yoink]

Scrolled back, had a look, it contained the expression 'the atheist position', so no, I shan't bother to reply to it. I confess, I fail to see any point in tsig saying I 'prefer' arses, if a homophobic jibe wasn't the intention. Someone else introduced the phrase 'can't be arsed' in this thread, though I'd freely admitted I had no intention of shifting mine to dig up an example - luckily, I'd predicted one sooner or later and it arrived sooner, right here. Homophobic or not, it was certainly scraping the bottom (groan) of the barrel, eh?

Enlightenme, I do speak myself, I was speaking for myself, and your suggestion that I should so is irrelevant, redundant and apparantly born of a desire for conflict rather than a shared understanding.

Dasmiller and yoinks, the fact that you've said nothing to convince me I'm wrong (not least because you've barely addressed it, preferring to make snide remarks) doesn't equate to my believing my intellect is superior. To use an analogy, claiming to have a quart but refusing to show it to me because you insist I have a pint pot is interesting, momentarily and in context, but doesn't convince me of your superior intelligence.

So someone using the phrase "the atheist position" automatically makes the post that contains it unreadable to you. Could you enlighten us as to other secret "no go" phrases that make you incapable of recognizing that your argument has been addressed and comprehensively settled? "Pickled avocados"? "Hot flamingos are green"?

[jiggeryqua]

Gone 2am here, boys and girls, and I'm off to bed. Feel free to pretend that I'm not posting because I'm scared of your mighty intellects. Bbl.

[Sledge]

He can't answer that question because the post contains the phrase "the atheist position." Someone will have to ask the question without referring explicitly to that phrase.

[ElightenMe]

Enlightenme, I do speak myself, I was speaking for myself, and your suggestion that I should so is irrelevant, redundant and apparantly born of a desire for conflict rather than a shared understanding.


Once again, speak for yourself. If it was so apparent that I have a desire for conflict on an open forum, it would be apparent to everyone, not just you. Quite the contrary, if I had a desire simply for conflict, my posting history would show me arguing with you on everything. If you check my posting history however (if you "can be arsed") you will see that i have in fact, supported some of your posts, disagreed with some of your posts and remained silent on many. I would regard that as neutral.

[tsig]

You're not as bright as you'd like us to believe, that much is clear, or you'd not need to stoop so low. .

That's three posters you have declared to be too stupid to understand yet you freely admit that you don't understand so welcome to the club.

[jiggeryqua]

So someone using the phrase "the atheist position" automatically makes the post that contains it unreadable to you. Could you enlighten us as to other secret "no go" phrases that make you incapable of recognizing that your argument has been addressed and comprehensively settled? "Pickled avocados"? "Hot flamingos are green"?

Broken promises...I'm cleaning my teeth with the other hand, I just popped back to lampoon you for believing in One True Atheist Position.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is one of the most entertaining threads I've read in a long time.

~~ Paul

[dasmiller]

"an intelligence greater than himself <by an order of magnitude (such as we might call it 'god')>". It is not a false or absurd statement to say that that is what CurtC denied.

It is, in fact, false and absurd to take CurtC's quote:

Got any evidence? I'm very interested to hear it, and if this omniscient intelligence is actually real I'd certainly want to know about it.

and present it as denial of the possibility of intelligences substantially greater than his own.

[Yoink]

"an intelligence greater than himself <by an order of magnitude (such as we might call it 'god')>". It is not a false or absurd statement to say that that is what CurtC denied.

It is not an absurd statement, it is, however, a false one. You exanded upon your original positing of "an intelligence greater than himself <by an order of magnitude (such as we might call it 'god')>" to define this intelligence as "omniscient." Therefore what CurtC rejected was this "omniscient" being.

If you didn't want CurtC to be considering the case of an "omniscient" being I cannot begin to understand why you chose to define that hypothetical being as "omniscient."

I suspect, however, that you're a troll who prefers heated argument to actual rational discussion. The fact that the one post in which I met your argument head-on and discussed it in all seriousness (post 111) was simply ignored by you despite repeated pleas to address it suggests that the last thing you want is any kind of serious discussion. That would also explain why you simply ignore the fact that you were the one who posited an "omniscient" being to CurtC and continue to bang this pointless drum about him denying the existence of any being more intelligent that himself.

[Yoink]

Broken promises...I'm cleaning my teeth with the other hand, I just popped back to lampoon you for believing in One True Atheist Position.

Oh, was that your problem. O.K, great: go back to post 111 and substitute the phrase "one coherent atheist position" for the phrase "the atheist position." You'll find that your argument has been comprehensively dealt with.

[Yoink]

Gone 2am here, boys and girls, and I'm off to bed. Feel free to pretend that I'm not posting because I'm scared of your mighty intellects. Bbl.

We've already established that it is logically impossible for you to believe in the existence of any intellect greater than your own. Or do you admit that your "a quart can't fit in a pint pot" argument is nothing more than a rather compelling metaphor with no logical force whatsoever?

[arthwollipot]

This is one of the most entertaining threads I've read in a long time.If watching someone deliberately drive a car in front of an oncoming train is considered entertainment...

[tsig]

If watching someone deliberately drive a car in front of an oncoming train is considered entertainment...

The real fun is watching them deny the reality of the train and even the ensuing crash.

Just a flesh wound sir.(obligatory Python reference)

[lionking]

If watching someone deliberately drive a car in front of an oncoming train is considered entertainment...
It's fairly rare to see a new member piss off so many reasonable people in such a short time, as well as throw around playground insults. This thread was an exercise in trollery from the beginning.

[Dunstan]

It's fairly rare to see a new member piss off so many reasonable people in such a short time, as well as throw around playground insults. This thread was an exercise in trollery from the beginning.

It's sad. These New Agnostics are so strident, militant, and uncivil. They're just as dogmatic and fundamentalist as the people they criticize.

[tsig]

It's sad. These New Agnostics are so strident, militant, and uncivil. They're just as dogmatic and fundamentalist as the people they criticize.


Yes. "I don't know and neither do you" seems like a strange battlecry.

[jsfisher]

It's fairly rare to see a new member piss off so many reasonable people in such a short time, as well as throw around playground insults. This thread was an exercise in trollery from the beginning.

I, for one, am rather amazed at how calm the posts have been as we near the 200 mark. There have been only a handful of comments on his snide remarks and other curious usage of language.

[Echoes]

CurtC holds firmly to the position that there is no intelligence greater than his own. Call it what you will, he contends that it does not exist because he cannot conceive of it

That is, actually, not what he said at all. He said that he does not believe in such a being because there is no evidence for it, and then he asked if you could provide any. That is fundamentally different from saying he can not conceive it.

To illustrate: I can conceive of an omniscient being, and I believe it is conceptually possible for one to exist in some possible world. I do not believe in one because I have not seen any evidence for it. I can also conceive of a unicorn. I do not believe in unicorns because I have not yet seen evidence for their existence.

You have repeatedly claimed that CurtC demonstrated the mythical atheist argument presented in original post. He did not. The two lines of reasoning are quite distinct. The argument you presented in your initial post is from a hypothetical athiest who cannot conceive of a omniscient being because an omniscient being would not allow the universe to be as it is. CurtC doesn't believe in an omniscient being because there is not evidence.

Cheers.

[CurtC]

You are not convinced that there is any intelligence greater than your own?

After a break of a few hours, I've returned to find that you've repeatedly lied about what I said and dug several other holes for yourself. It's good to see that every other person who posted seems to recognize this.

So what's your point of being here, jiggeryqua? Coming into a place and telling lies about a long-standing member, when it's plainly obvious in front of everyone that they're lies, can't get give you any sense of making a headway with whatever argument you're making. So what are you looking for? Just to get a bunch of smart, reasonable people upset with you?

[Echoes]

CurtC, I'm sorry you feel I lied - I asked you if you could conceive of a being such as could be called god, and if so, were you still an atheist? Note, not 'do you believe in a god?' and certainly not 'do you believe in god <x>?' Your answer was that you dispute the existence of something that you cannot be shown evidence of, although the premis was the possibility of something of which you cannot be shown evidence.

I am not proposing a god to exist. I am positing the existence of an intelligence greater than yours. (Actually, that's easy - let's posit an intelligence greater than yours by many orders of magnitude or, if you prefer, an omniscient intelligence). Let's call it 'god, for the sake of argument - are you still an atheist?

I just want to point out, again, that you DID NOT ask CurtC if he could conceive of a omniscient being. You posited the existence of one and then asked if that was enough for him to stop being an atheist. CurtC gave the obvious answer: No. People posit gods all the time without rationale, and we reject this as tenable premise. When there is evidence, we will reconsider the positon.

What you think you asked and what you really did ask are not the same thing.

That said, even if you had asked the question you meant to, why on earth would the ability to conceive of something be a reason to believe it really exists? I can conceive of a flat Earth, but I have no reason to believe in one. Same for fairies, same for trolls, same for vulcans, same for gods.

[Yoink]

I just want to point out, again, that you DID NOT ask CurtC if he could conceive of a omniscient being. You posited the existence of one and then asked if that was enough for him to stop being an atheist. CurtC gave the obvious answer: No. People posit gods all the time without rationale, and we reject this as tenable premise. When there is evidence, we will reconsider the positon.

What you think you asked and what you really did ask are not the same thing.

That said, even if you had asked the question you meant to, why on earth would the ability to conceive of something be a reason to believe it really exists? I can conceive of a flat Earth, but I have no reason to believe in one. Same for fairies, same for trolls, same for vulcans, same for gods.

Forget it. Jiggeryqua is, for some reason, incapable of rereading his own posts.

[Cosmic Roy]

If you could so kindly provide a link to someone actually saying this, it would help. If I heard someone saying this, I'd think he's terribly confused, because omniscience and acting in a morally upright way are not the same concept.

I'd call it a non-sequitur fallacy. The implied premise that God would act morally does not follow from the idea of omniscience.

Sure, theologians are thinkers. Just like someone can furiously think through the idea of a perfect unicorn. They're just avoiding seeing a big problem in their thinking.




The idea that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent is quite commonly worded that way. A nice shorthand is "tri-omni."


I don't know whether jiggeryqua's opening question was limited to the morality (or otherwise) of a god's actions, but if not, then an example of the argument might be found in the oft-repeated rebuttal to claims that the eye contains evidence for design. This argument goes something like: "The mammalian eye is suboptimally designed because <insert reason here>, which shows that it was not the handiwork of an omnipotent deity."
Perhaps this argument is too specific to the evolution/intelligent design debate to be one of the arguments that have contributed to jiggeryqua’s “accreted discontentment”, but it seems to me that it fits the nature of his caricature:

"Omniscient God? My arse, have you seen what he's done and what he refuses to do? I'm pretty smart, at least I think I am, but I can't condone behaving like that, so how can an omniscient god?"

Maybe it could be considered to be a form of 'argument from lack of imagination'?

If jiggeryqua did mean to focus more on moral and immoral (or amoral?) acts by a god, then I think Christopher Hitchens has argued along these lines. I don't have a reference or web link, sorry, but a criticism I've heard him make in debate at least once is levelled at the Christian God's relatively late arrival in the Middle East after allowing thousands of generations of His children (anatomically modern humans) to live in ignorance and misery.

Please accept my apologies if I have misrepresented anybody in this post.

ETA: Having said that, I'm wondering now if my memory misserves me - I think Hitchens's point might have been that such a god is simply unworthy of worship.

Second ETA: Even so, I think it still might be a valid example of jiggeryqua's cited argument, since I don't think jiggeryqua mentioned whether the argument was applied specifically to the question of a god's existence.

[Darat]

As ever: Stop with the personal attacks, bickering and other breaches of your Membership Agreement and stick to attacking the argument or claims.

[CurtC]

Oh, and CurtC, I'm sorry you feel I lied...
And, FYI, several others on this thread also fell that you lied, including a board moderator in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5486844&postcount=81).



...I asked you if you could conceive of a being such as could be called god, and if so, were you still an atheist?Just to be clear, you posited the existence of a being with intelligence many orders of magnitude greater than my own, even omniscient, even one called "god," and asked whether I would still be an atheist. My answer was that yes, I would still be an atheist. You had not presented any evidence that this "god" exists, so I would not have a positive belief that it exists, which is another way of saying that I would be an atheist with regard to it. I don't see how anyone could rationally answer otherwise.

[bwinwright]

Jiggeryqua, omniscient Atheist? Supposedly, God is ominpresent, omniscient, and omnipotent...not omnibenevolent as someone mentioned before.

Might it be possible for this presence we call God to be neutral outside of individuals, totally subject to the thoughts and feelings of the individual? Even though it incluedes all of us, it isn't concerned about any damage our lust, greed, hatred, and abuse of power may be perceived to cause?

[Waterman]

There'll be a better label than 'quoting out of context' too, I expect. It wasn't a specific instance, but an accumulation of specific instances. No strawman involved.

drkitten informs us that theologians and apologists (is that a genuine category of thinker, or some kind of cereal-based stand-in?) have struggled with the question of omniscience for some very long time. I'll allow that it always accompanies claims of omnipotence (if we're allowing that 'god' be defined only by a position that suits our argument at the time), though I've never personally encountered the term 'omnibenevolence' before'. Certainly, those christians I've encountered tend to refer to a 'benevolent' god, but I suspect the good doctor invented the omni- prefix there.

But again, while I'm sure it's anyone's human right to question the existence of god - and even to demand tailored proof - why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?

I have come late to the party and if this has been addressed I appologize, but this line of reasoning strikes me as odd. The people here don't argue with god, they are argueing with people who claim to speak on the behalf of god or claim to know what god wants. There is a BIG difference.

[ElightenMe]

Jiggeryqua, omniscient Atheist? Supposedly, God is ominpresent, omniscient, and omnipotent...not omnibenevolent as someone mentioned before.

Might it be possible for this presence we call God to be neutral outside of individuals, totally subject to the thoughts and feelings of the individual? Even though it incluedes all of us, it isn't concerned about any damage our lust, greed, hatred, and abuse of power may be perceived to cause?

Just today saw an interesting adaption of how no three of the four omni-'s can logical fit together in one being.

Logically if a being is omnipotent it is all-powerful, then it has the power to not know everything, not love everything and not be everywhere.... which means it cannot also be either omnipresent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent in conjunction.

[Dunstan]

Just today saw an interesting adaption of how no three of the four omni-'s can logical fit together in one being.

Logically if a being is omnipotent it is all-powerful, then it has the power to not know everything, not love everything and not be everywhere.... which means it cannot also be either omnipresent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent in conjunction.

It's always struck me as odd that so many Christians in particualr seem wedded to a tri- or quad-omni god. It poses the logical difficulties noted throughout this thread, and it's not like it's biblically based -- the god of the Bible doesn't know everything (Adam and Eve hide from him), and while I don't recall the Bible mentioning any limits on his power, I don't recall it claiming that there were none, either. Omnipresent just seems like a rehash of omniscient. As to omnibenevolent -- well, enough has been said about the benevolence of the biblical god....

I'm actually surprised that more Christians don't say, "well, he's not literally omnipotent, just really really really powerful, at least compared to humans, and he's not omnibenevolent, but overall he's a force for good." Which, of course, some do claim. And that doesn't get around the lack of evidence, but it does at least mean that their god can't be vanquished from the confines of an armchair!

Is anyone familiar with the origins of the "omni-" formulations? I hate to say that it sounds like someone got carried away with the "my god can beat up your god" stuff, but....

[X]

Jiggeryqua, omniscient Atheist? Supposedly, God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent...not omnibenevolent as someone mentioned before.


Omniscient: all-knowing
Omnipotent: all-powerful

If god is all-knowing, then god knows everything, including what is going to happen. Which means god knows what god will do in the future. Which means god cannot change it's mind. And if god does not have to power to change it's own mind, how can god possible be considered "all-powerful"?

[PixyMisa]

It's always struck me as odd that so many Christians in particualr seem wedded to a tri- or quad-omni god. It poses the logical difficulties noted throughout this thread, and it's not like it's biblically based -- the god of the Bible doesn't know everything (Adam and Eve hide from him), and while I don't recall the Bible mentioning any limits on his power
Judges 1:19 :)

[slingblade]

Yes, thank you, I'm settling in nicely and getting to know some of you, at least by your posting styles. Not terribly many posts yet, but I find myself frequently having to repeat that I am neither a christian nor any other variety of theist, so I'll put it right here again just to be sure.

You chaps (gender-neutral word) seem red-hot at identifying fallacies in reasoning (even to the the extent of introducing me to the accepted labels for some of the more common errors of argument, for which I'm grateful), so perhaps someone can tell me what this fallacy is called?

"Omniscient God? My arse, have you seen what he's done and what he refuses to do? I'm pretty smart, at least I think I am, but I can't condone behaving like that, so how can an omniscient god?"

I suspect it involves a mis-definition of 'omniscient' as meaning 'almost as intelligent as I am'.

Argument from Incredulity, for one.

That's not my argument for how I know gods don't exist, though, because I actually don't know that. I do doubt it so strongly that it's virtualy indistinguishable from knowing it, but still, the point remains.

[Piscivore]

Is anyone familiar with the origins of the "omni-" formulations? I hate to say that it sounds like someone got carried away with the "my god can beat up your god" stuff, but....

My guess is it stems from an emotional need for a "perfect" super-parent.

[drkitten]

Just today saw an interesting adaption of how no three of the four omni-'s can logical fit together in one being.

Logically if a being is omnipotent it is all-powerful, then it has the power to not know everything, not love everything and not be everywhere....

If an omnipotent being chooses not to exercise its power to do X, that doesn't make it not omnipotent or incapable of doing X. This particular argument/response has been around since the Middle Ages, and the argument wasn't very good then.

Similarly, we can still have free will in the presence of an omnipotent God who chooses to refrain from forcing us to act. He could make us do what He wants, but instead has chosen to grant us free will.

[drkitten]

My guess is it stems from an emotional need for a "perfect" super-parent.

It's also a historical outgrowth of monotheism. The idea of luck, of an uncaused event, or the idea that "things just happen, the hell with it" is actually fairly sophisticated and most "primitive" cultures don't have such an idea. (Look at the Illiad for an example. Everything that happens is caused either by a god(dess) or a mortal; there's no notion of good or bad luck, just the favor or disfavor of the gods.)

When you've got a set of (polytheistic) gods, you can divide responsibility for all that happens among the set of gods, so Zeus makes thunderstorms and Demeter makes the crops grow. With just one god (=God), though, that one god ends up being responsible for everything and therefore capable of anything. Hence, omnipotent and all the rest.

And, of course, these fairly sophisticated arguments about exactly what omni- means require developments in logic and mathematics that were several thousand years in the future, so no one really thought hard about questions like "a rock so heavy God can't lift it."

[Elizabeth I]

And, of course, these fairly sophisticated arguments about exactly what omni- means require developments in logic and mathematics that were several thousand years in the future, so no one really thought hard about questions like "a rock so heavy God can't lift it."

Actually, I've known kids (including myself) to come up with this question.

[GeeMack]

(Some) Posters imagine that they can cast doubt on the existence of god by claiming that god's behaviour looks foolish or wrong or cruel to them.


Care to back that claim of yours with a link to someone saying they imagine that?

[drkitten]

Actually, I've known kids (including myself) to come up with this question.

Of course. You had natural philosophy (=science) in elementary school. It's not a question of age, it's a question of philosophical sophistication. A lot of the concepts that our five year olds take for granted were absolutely mindboggling when first proposed.....

[Ausmerican]

I was merely asking for a label for it, I have no axe to grind for either side (although I do hone it on the idea that there are only two sides, now and again). It wasn't a debate, I wasn't attacking the argument - any more than I'd kick someone who was obviously crippled.

There isn't ONLY two sides, there isn't even two sides.
It is one sided. A sliding scale.

Everyone is an agnostic, because no-one KNOWS.
The sliding scale of agnosticism goes all the way from strong theist to strong atheist.

Usually at those two end points the people there will CLAIM to know, but it is just a claim.

[Waterman]

Do all atheists arrive at their conclusion re: god(s) via the same reasoning?
Is my opinion that people come to this idea from many different ways there is no unity of path claimed.

Do all atheists have the background in formal logic and can formulate foolproof logical argument.
Absolutely not! I have been an atheist for many years and am only learning now from this site and others a better way to present arguments and recognizing why some arguments stink and others don’t.

Will you run across atheists that present poorly reasoned arguments?
Absolutely, no doubt you have. However it is better to point out their errors in arguments instead of calling them stupid. Not all of us have had the benefit of formal training in presenting logical arguments. I daresay that a skilled debater would ‘win’ an argument with a unskilled one regardless of the side taken by slipping in fallacies that on the surface sound reasonable and would go unchallenged by the untrained.

It was devilish (tricky word, try to get over it), let's say mischievous, to suggest calling an intelligence greater than CurtC's <by an order of magnitude (such that it might be called 'god')> 'god', and perhaps that's why he insists he doesn't believe in it. Maybe he is happy to believe in an intelligence greater than his <by an order of magnitude> so long as nobody calls it 'god'. In that case, he merely needs to be convinced that it doesn't really matter what you call it, but if that is the case he's clearly not intelligent enough to get that either.

Actually it looked to me as you were trying to set up a GOTCHA question with you defining a intelligence significantly greater <by an order of magnitude> than ours ‘god’. No matter his answer you had a gotcha unless he took a paragraph to answer it.
It exists – HA you do believe in god, depending on how one defines it therefore you are not an atheist.
It doesn’t exist – HA you believe that there is nothing smarter than humans, no where in the universe how arrogant.

I will no more call a super intelligent being should it arrive ‘god’ and bow down in worship than I will call his technology ‘magic’.

In one of your opening posts you stated:

The question (or at least the last one, though you seem unable to retain enough information from the post you're responding to to answer the questions in it, so I doubt it will work to repeat it) was:

"why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?"

Your question it seems has a number of unstated premises that puts it in the category of ‘begging the question’.

Unstated premise #1: There exists a god to argue with.
While on a more theistic board that would be a given. However on board devoted to critical thinking one must fist support this premise before proposing how we could win an argument with such a being.

Unstated premise #2: God is omniscient.
This may be an accepted given at other sites but not here. How would one know this with out presupposing this as a part of the definition of god?

In addition this seems to be hanging around but is not clear.

A logical argument can be invalidated by a greater intelligence.
No, a skilled debater (or super intelligent being) can win a debate with a poor debater (or lesser being). However that does not mean that the arguments presented are valid or not.

[Foster Zygote]

Actually, I've known kids (including myself) to come up with this question.

Or, as Bongo asked in Life in Hell, "If God is everywhere, is he in the toilet?".

[CurtC]

Do all atheists arrive at their conclusion re: god(s) via the same reasoning?
Is my opinion that people come to this idea from many different ways there is no unity of path claimed.
I also arrived at my atheism through less-than-perfect logical reasoning. I had been brought up that the Bible was absolutely true, and that evolution couldn't have happened because that contradicts the Bible. Then in college when I actually saw the amount of evidence that evolution happened, my whole belief system shattered. I came to a point where I realized that either I believed the evidence that I see, or I believe that this 2000 year old book was the work of God. That's not much of a choice - evolution happened, and there's no reason to believe this Bible stuff - I was an atheist. I didn't really spend any time pondering whether some other, non-"literal God of the Bible" might exist. But I guess I gradually learned about other religions and none of them convinced me with their evidence either, so I've remained an atheist.


I daresay that a skilled debater would ‘win’ an argument with a unskilled one regardless of the side taken by slipping in fallacies that on the surface sound reasonable and would go unchallenged by the untrained.That's describing William Lane Craig exactly - he's a skilled debater who can rattle off logical fallacies at a bewildering pace.


Actually it looked to me as you were trying to set up a GOTCHA question with you defining a intelligence significantly greater <by an order of magnitude> than ours ‘god’. No matter his answer you had a gotcha unless he took a paragraph to answer it.
It exists – HA you do believe in god, depending on how one defines it therefore you are not an atheist.
It doesn’t exist – HA you believe that there is nothing smarter than humans, no where in the universe how arrogant.But I take neither of those positions. I realize that I don't know enough to assert that his being who is a million times more intelligent than me, does not exist. I simply said that without evidence, I have no reason to believe that it does.

[arthwollipot]

Jig? You still there? Hello?

[PixyMisa]

That's describing William Lane Craig exactly - he's a skilled debater who can rattle off logical fallacies at a bewildering pace.
The appropriate tactic would be to have a pile of colour-coded cards prepared, and to hold them up while Craig was talking -

Argument From Authority
Argument From Ignorance
False Dichotomy

And, of course, hand out bingo cards to the audience in advance. ;)

[dafydd]

Well feel free to argue with me, if that's how you get your jollies. I don't channel anybody or anything - but it's always best on a skeptics forum to kick people in case they're woos, don't you think? So crack on - have an argument, I'll try to join in if you're at all entertaining.

The question (or at least the last one, though you seem unable to retain enough information from the post you're responding to to answer the questions in it, so I doubt it will work to repeat it) was:

"why should anyone imagine that their less than omniscient minds could argue with god?"

Because god doesn't exist.Simple.

[dafydd]

Gone 2am here, boys and girls, and I'm off to bed. Feel free to pretend that I'm not posting because I'm scared of your mighty intellects. Bbl.

Ah,resorting to insults,always the sign of a loser in a discussion.

[tsig]

Ah,resorting to insults,always the sign of a loser in a discussion.

Fighting with strawmen, leaping to conclusions and dodging arguments is tiring work.

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, thank you, I'm settling in nicely and getting to know some of you, at least by your posting styles. Not terribly many posts yet, but I find myself frequently having to repeat that I am neither a christian nor any other variety of theist, so I'll put it right here again just to be sure.

You chaps (gender-neutral word) seem red-hot at identifying fallacies in reasoning (even to the the extent of introducing me to the accepted labels for some of the more common errors of argument, for which I'm grateful), so perhaps someone can tell me what this fallacy is called?

"Omniscient God? My arse, have you seen what he's done and what he refuses to do? I'm pretty smart, at least I think I am, but I can't condone behaving like that, so how can an omniscient god?"

I suspect it involves a mis-definition of 'omniscient' as meaning 'almost as intelligent as I am'.

Could be argument from incredulity (I can't believe an omniscient creator God would do things like that, therefore it can't exist), but I suspect the intended argument is valid but very weak: I, a mere mortal with a limited intellect, can imagine ways of doing things that would be more efficient and result in less suffering; therefore it seems the world we find ourselves in is a bit at odds with claims that any creator was omniscient. In this form, the arguer has a point, but there are multiple valid counter-arguments: the creator is powerful but not omnipotent and this is the best it could do, even with omniscience; there are mysterious reasons why this is the best possible way things could be (I would say this also points to a being that falls short of omnipotence); or God doesn't care about efficiency or suffering.

As some posters have pointed out, omniscience is not self-contradictory, but it is more than a little dodgy when coupled with omnipotence, and flat-out unreasonable when couple with both omnipotence and omnibenevolence (or even very benevolent) due to the problem of reconciling that with the suffering we find in nature.

I've never encountered anyone who attributed God as solely having omniscience, so if my experience is any guide it would probably be rare for someone to make an argument against omniscience in isolation, but I can easily imagine someone assuming the omniscience is coupled with other omni-attributes without being explicit about it.

The phrase you use as an example really seems to be more about decency than omniscience, perhaps the person in your example meant 'benevolent' rather than 'omniscient'. 'Condoning' implies a moral judgement rather than an evaluation of knowledge and intelligence. On the other hand, perhaps the benevolence was assumed and the person was incredulous that an omniscient deity couldn't do better, presuming that is what it is trying to do.

[Mister Agenda]

Jiggeryqua, omniscient Atheist? Supposedly, God is ominpresent, omniscient, and omnipotent...not omnibenevolent as someone mentioned before.

Might it be possible for this presence we call God to be neutral outside of individuals, totally subject to the thoughts and feelings of the individual? Even though it incluedes all of us, it isn't concerned about any damage our lust, greed, hatred, and abuse of power may be perceived to cause?

This is a good point, Bwinwright. A morally neutral God effectively neuters the problem of suffering as an argument against God.

[Philosaur]

If an omnipotent being chooses not to exercise its power to do X, that doesn't make it not omnipotent or incapable of doing X. This particular argument/response has been around since the Middle Ages, and the argument wasn't very good then.

Similarly, we can still have free will in the presence of an omnipotent God who chooses to refrain from forcing us to act. He could make us do what He wants, but instead has chosen to grant us free will.

The more interesting question (and I know it's been rehashed ad infinitum) is how we can reconcile free will with omniscience. If god knows what action we will take next, can we really be said to have "chosen" it? If so, it's a very hollow sort of free will.

Another interesting consequence of the tri-(or quad-)omni god is that god should never act, as action entails change, and change implies imperfection (or so the argument goes). I think it springs from at least this verse: "I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."—Malachi 3:6.

[dasmiller]

Another interesting consequence of the tri-(or quad-)omni god is that god should never act, as action entails change, and change implies imperfection (or so the argument goes). I think it springs from at least this verse: "I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."—Malachi 3:6.

I'll respectfully disagree. "Change implies imperfection" only if there is there is a single static perfect state. If there are many perfect states, or if "perfect" depends on some changing aspect of the environment (for example, for a watch to be 'perfectly' representing the time, it has to keep changing its state), then change will not necessarily imply imperfection.

But I think that the definitions of perfection/imperfection, omnipotence, and omniscience are all in pretty fuzzy territory, so any reasoning that we do from those concepts should be regarded with some suspicion.

[tsig]

I'll respectfully disagree. "Change implies imperfection" only if there is there is a single static perfect state. If there are many perfect states, or if "perfect" depends on some changing aspect of the environment (for example, for a watch to be 'perfectly' representing the time, it has to keep changing its state), then change will not necessarily imply imperfection.

But I think that the definitions of perfection/imperfection, omnipotence, and omniscience are all in pretty fuzzy territory, so any reasoning that we do from those concepts should be regarded with some suspicion.

Perfect means unchanging you can change the meaning but then it would no longer be perfect.

"per⋅fect
  /adj., n. ˈpɜrfɪkt; v. pərˈfɛkt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt] Show IPA
Use perfect in a Sentence
See images of perfect
Search perfect on the Web
–adjective
1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.
5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy."


If a thing changes then it is imperfect.

[drkitten]

Perfect means unchanging you can change the meaning but then it would no longer be perfect.

No, it doesn't.

It simply means that it conforms to the description/ideal. If the description is vague enough, something can conform to the ideal in many different ways while remaning "perfect."

A simple example of that would be a "perfect" game in baseball, which has been achieved something like 18 times in professional baseball -- all in different and distinguishable games.

Similarly, I might have a "perfect" record as a boxer -- I've boxed five times, and won them all by knockouts. When I fight again, and win by a knockout, I have changed my record -- it's now 6-0, all by knockouts -- but my record remains perfect. Indeed, my record can continue to change as I add new bouts, but as long as I continue in this vein, my record will remain "perfect."

ETA: the example of a perfect watch (that keeps perfect time) has already been given. A watch that never changes is far from perfect.

[Piscivore]

Perfect means unchanging you can change the meaning but then it would no longer be perfect.

"per⋅fect
  /adj., n. ˈpɜrfɪkt; v. pərˈfɛkt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt] Show IPA
Use perfect in a Sentence
See images of perfect
Search perfect on the Web
–adjective
1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.
5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy."


If a thing changes then it is imperfect.

You do realise that the definition you posted says nothing at all about "change", right?

[tsig]

You do realise that the definition you posted says nothing at all about "change", right?

That's why it's perfect.

[Philosaur]

I'll respectfully disagree. "Change implies imperfection" only if there is there is a single static perfect state. If there are many perfect states, or if "perfect" depends on some changing aspect of the environment (for example, for a watch to be 'perfectly' representing the time, it has to keep changing its state), then change will not necessarily imply imperfection.

But I think that the definitions of perfection/imperfection, omnipotence, and omniscience are all in pretty fuzzy territory, so any reasoning that we do from those concepts should be regarded with some suspicion.

Let me be clear that this is NOT my argument (first--I'm an atheist, second, the definition of perfect I tend to use doesn't imply "no changes"). There is a pretty well-known set of theological arguments around the immutability of God.

I'll see if I can find links later, if anyone really wants them. Otherwise, Google should provide a few.

ETA: Also, I should not have said "Another interesting consequence...". Immutability isn't really a "consequence", just another attribute posited by some believers.

[drkitten]

Let me be clear that this is NOT my argument (first--I'm an atheist, second, the definition of perfect I tend to use doesn't imply "no changes"). There is a pretty well-known set of theological arguments around the immutability of God.

But you're misrepresenting the arguments.

You suggested that God can't act, because acting involves change. But God's actions typically aren't held to change God -- they change the world, and the world is certainly imperfect. And God presumptively acts in such a way as to change the world in the direction of increasing perfection, precisely because the world is bad in the ways that it differs and separates from God.

[Philosaur]

But you're misrepresenting the arguments.

You suggested that God can't act, because acting involves change. But God's actions typically aren't held to change God -- they change the world, and the world is certainly imperfect. And God presumptively acts in such a way as to change the world in the direction of increasing perfection, precisely because the world is bad in the ways that it differs and separates from God.

Maybe I am misrepresenting the argument. This is roughly parallel to the argument I remembered (from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/immutability/#4)).

Bolding is mine:

A more controversial response might be to deny even extrinsic change to God. This can be done by holding that God is atemporal. For if God exists at t and at a later t*, and, at t, P is true of him and, at t*, P is false of him, he does change extrinsically. He bears different relations to proposition P, at least. If God is atemporal, he exists neither at t nor at t* -- his existence is not temporally located. If this is so, there are never two times such that different things are true of him at different times. Rather, all that is ever true of him is true of him timelessly. But a thing changes, even extrinsically, only if different things are true of it at different times. Perhaps, then, defending DDI requires commitment to divine timelessness.

That is, at time t, God has not acted, and at t' God has acted.

I'm willing to be shown wrong...