Drange's argument from nonbelief

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is nonsense.

However lets get back to the point I was making, which is that it is possible to put bounds
on what god can or can't be/do by the application of logic.

Have you understood my point that a good defined to be omnipotent,
Where omnipotent means being infinitely powerful and able to do anything it wants,
Can't for logical reasons exist?

Okay. Give one logical reason why an omnipotent God can't exist.

Originally posted by josephw
Okay. Give one logical reason why an omnipotent God can't exist.

sigh, I already have.


Given a definition of omnipotent as infinitely powerful and able to do anything you want.

Then you construct a simple logical fallacy.

1 God is omnipotent.
2 God tries to create an immovable object not even god can move.

If god can't make the immovable object then god can't do something and thus can't be omnipotent.
If god can make the immovable object then god can't do something and thus can't be omnipotent.

Thus by this definition god can't be omnipotent, or all powerful.
So any definition of god that claims god to be omnipotent with the above definition for omnipotent can't be valid.

This doesn't preclude god existing, just precludes god being omnipotent.
(people tend to redefine omnipotent to include the line able to do "anything logically possible" to get around this)

However this does demonstrate the principle of being able to define limits on what powers and abilities god could
potentially have if god existed.
It rules out things that are actually impossible.
Barring logically impossible things existing, however if you allow that you break everything.
And nothing ever anywhere has ever even hinted at all in any way that it might even be conceivably possible.
And if you do go there you render the possibility of any discussion of god mute, meaningless and impossible.

Originally posted by googlefudge
sigh, I already have.


Given a definition of omnipotent as infinitely powerful and able to do anything you want.

Then you construct a simple logical fallacy.

1 God is omnipotent.
2 God tries to create an immovable object not even god can move.

If god can't make the immovable object then god can't do something and thus can't be omnipotent.
...[text shortened]... you render the possibility of any discussion of god mute, meaningless and impossible.

There's your problem. You believe you.

Are you omnipotent? Do you know what it means to be omnipotent? Have you ever been omnipotent?

How do you know an omnipotent God can't create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?

You gotta learn how to think outside the box fudgey.

Originally posted by josephw
There's your problem. You believe you.

Are you omnipotent? Do you know what it means to be omnipotent? Have you ever been omnipotent?

How do you know an omnipotent God can't create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?

You gotta learn how to think outside the box fudgey.

It's a logical argument.
It means the concept of able to do anything you want with no limits leads to logical contradictions.
It means that concept is not logically valid.

Sidestepping gods non-existence for a moment,

God might be able to create a rock too big for him to lift... but that means that there is something he can't do
and thus there are limits on what god can do thus if you define god as being able to do anything then that
definition can't be true.

And this was not invented by me, or even recently, this is very old, (and valid) reasoning.

And I am actually known for being good at thinking outside the box, however this means being creative and
imaginative, coming up with novel ideas and solutions, it doesn't mean being irrational.

You on the other hand are rehashing ideas refuted centuries ago, talk about being in the box.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's a logical argument.
It means the concept of able to do anything you want with no limits leads to logical contradictions.
It means that concept is not logically valid.

Sidestepping gods non-existence for a moment,

God might be able to create a rock too big for him to lift... but that means that there is something he can't do
and thus there ...[text shortened]... ou on the other hand are rehashing ideas refuted centuries ago, talk about being in the box.

"It means the concept of able to do anything you want with no limits leads to logical contradictions."

For you it does.

It's a fallacious argument to make in the first place. You are not omnipotent, nor do you know what it means to be omnipotent, therefore you are not equipped to create an argument against what an omnipotent being can or cannot do. That's logic.

A theist says God is omnipotent because God is in possession of all power imaginable. The atheist comes along and reads more into it than is necessary, and starts an argument about something he knows nothing about. Not logical at all.

Originally posted by googlefudge
God might be able to create a rock too big for him to lift... but that means that there is something he can't do
and thus there are limits on what god can do thus if you define god as being able to do anything then that
definition can't be true.

And this was not invented by me, or even recently, this is very old, (and valid) reasoning.

while i usually agree with you, i have to take exception to this. it is an old argument, however it is not an argument with valid reasoning.

an omnipotent being can theoretically create a rock that's infinitely big and it would still be able to lift it.

the problem is that you're framing the question as something an omnipotent being can't do and you're no longer talking about an omnipotent being.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"It means the concept of able to do anything you want with no limits leads to logical contradictions."

For you it does.

It's a fallacious argument to make in the first place. You are not omnipotent, nor do you know what it means to be omnipotent, therefore you are not equipped to create an argument against what an omnipotent being can or cannot ...[text shortened]... ecessary, and starts an argument about something he knows nothing about. Not logical at all.[/b]

No it leads to contradictions for anyone, or anything.

You don't understand the argument, there is nowhere to go from here.

If you don't understand logic then there isn't any logical discussion we can engage in.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
while i usually agree with you, i have to take exception to this. it is an old argument, however it is not an argument with valid reasoning.

an omnipotent being can theoretically create a rock that's infinitely big and it would still be able to lift it.

the problem is that you're framing the question as something an omnipotent being can't do and you're no longer talking about an omnipotent being.

I framed it as an immovable object, but the point is that if you can do ANYTHING then that
anything includes the ability to create objects that you can't do something to.

Like create an objects that's indestructible, so not even god can destroy it.
If god can't make such an object then there is something god can't do.
If god can create it then it can't destroy it so that's something god can't do.

Either way it can't be possible for the ability of 'being able to do anything' leads inexorably
to the creation of logical contradictions.

If you define omnipotent to be less than that, for example by having an 'anything logically possible'
clause or by saying it means as powerful as its possible to be such that nothing could ever be more powerful
then you can avoid such a paradox (although you can still potentially run into other problems)

Originally posted by googlefudge
No it leads to contradictions for anyone, or anything.

You don't understand the argument, there is nowhere to go from here.

If you don't understand logic then there isn't any logical discussion we can engage in.

Omnipotent=All power

God is omnipotent=God has all power

That is logical.

But to stretch the argument out and say "if God were omnipotent, then He should be able to do something like create a rock too heavy for Him to lift" is to create a fallacious and illogical argument.

The argument is illogical because it creates a paradox.

Originally posted by josephw
Omnipotent=All power

God is omnipotent=God has all power

That is logical.

But to stretch the argument out and say "if God were omnipotent, then He should be able to do something like create a rock too heavy for Him to lift" is to create a fallacious and illogical argument.

The argument is illogical because it creates a paradox.

define all power.

Originally posted by googlefudge
define all power.

Absolute control. Infinite capacity. Final authority.

God

Originally posted by googlefudge
I framed it as an immovable object, but the point is that if you can do ANYTHING then that
anything includes the ability to create objects that you can't do something to.

Like create an objects that's indestructible, so not even god can destroy it.
If god can't make such an object then there is something god can't do.
If god can create it then it ...[text shortened]... an avoid such a paradox (although you can still potentially run into other problems)

no, these are logical fallacies as absurd as asking "can god create a square circle?"
you are in essence redefining omnipotence so that it is no longer omnipotence.

If god can create it then it can't destroy it so that's something god can't do.

yes, and then he would no longer be omnipotent. an omnipotent being can create any object and destroy any object. it is not in the nature of an omnipotent being to not be able to do something.

Either way it can't be possible for the ability of 'being able to do anything' leads inexorably
to the creation of logical contradictions.

the logical contradictions exist only in the questions of what this being can do.

If you define omnipotent to be less than that, for example by having an 'anything logically possible'
clause or by saying it means as powerful as its possible to be such that nothing could ever be more powerful
then you can avoid such a paradox (although you can still potentially run into other problems)

omnipotence is defined as unlimited power. from that frame of reference, descriptive properties such as "indestructible" don't exist. such terms only exist in the reference of beings with limited power.

Originally posted by josephw
Absolute control. Infinite capacity. Final authority.

God

googlefudge asked me to define "all power".

My answer: Absolute control. Infinite capacity. Final authority. God.

I can't believe no one jumped on this.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's a logical argument.
It means the concept of able to do anything you want with no limits leads to logical contradictions.
It means that concept is not logically valid.

Sidestepping gods non-existence for a moment,

God might be able to create a rock too big for him to lift... but that means that there is something he can't do
and thus there ...[text shortened]... ou on the other hand are rehashing ideas refuted centuries ago, talk about being in the box.

Your poor stab at logic merely reveals your inability in handling it. You may as well be saying 'if He's so powerful, let's see God not be God!' Childish and silly.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I framed it as an immovable object, but the point is that if you can do ANYTHING then that
anything includes the ability to create objects that you can't do something to.

Like create an objects that's indestructible, so not even god can destroy it.
If god can't make such an object then there is something god can't do.
If god can create it then it an avoid such a paradox (although you can still potentially run into other problems)

I second VoidSpirit here; in particular, the more sophisticated theist merely points out from the outset that they permit only elements from the set of things logically possible to be included in their definition of "omnipotent" - and wearily overlook the version you present here.

Moreover, structurally speaking, "can an omnipotent god create a rock it can't lift?" is similar to "can an omnipotent god make itself be both god and not god?" and surely it need not be pointed out the latter is merely an example of cobbling together a sentence with no actual meaning.