Sphynxcat wrote:

It is theological. End of.

I can haaz the power to read previous posts!

?

Well, at least I'm adding something, other than:

Mick: "You know nothing about omnipotence. I do, but I won't tell you what I know."

I never said that or anything like it.

Given that his power must necessarily have limits, then certainly. (Look Mick - a straight answer. How about that, eh?)

Can you provide an example?

Mick wrote:

Sphynxcat wrote:

It is theological. End of.

Glad we got that sorted, then.

I can haaz the power to read previous posts!

?

I do. I really do have that power!

Well, at least I'm adding something, other than:

Mick: "You know nothing about omnipotence. I do, but I won't tell you what I know."

I never said that or anything like it.

You have indeed said nothing regarding your personal take on the subject.

Given that his power must necessarily have limits, then certainly. (Look Mick - a straight answer. How about that, eh?)

Can you provide an example?

Yes: Can god create a rock that he cannot lift?

Sphynxcat wrote:

Yes: Can god create a rock that he cannot lift?

Why would that involve God making a mistake?

Mick wrote:

Sphynxcat wrote:

Yes: Can god create a rock that he cannot lift?

Why would that involve God making a mistake?

Oops. My fault - thought you meant a demonstration in relation to his omnipotence.

But a god of limited power could certainly mistakes - as per examples...I dunno. Hitting his thumb with a hammer maybe. Something like that. I find it odd why you would seem to be presuming that a being with limited power would be immune to making mistakes. I know hundreds of beings with limited power, and they make mistakes all the time!

Sphynxcat wrote:

Mick wrote:

Sphynxcat wrote:

Yes: Can god create a rock that he cannot lift?

Why would that involve God making a mistake?

Oops. My fault - thought you meant a demonstration in relation to his omnipotence.

But a god of limited power could certainly mistakes - as per examples...I dunno. Hitting his thumb with a hammer maybe. Something like that. I find it odd why you would seem to be presuming that a being with limited power would be immune to making mistakes. I know hundreds of beings with limited power, and they make mistakes all the time!

Well, it's His omniscience which makes it curious enough for me to ask.

God's omniscience is also problematic. But I'll get on to that later Mick, as I have to go now. Cheerio old chap!

The Doctor wrote:Unlimited power and capable of doing anything. This also entails that God is and can be self-existing.

Isn't existence a prerequisite of "doing"?

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote: Exquisite! To state one's definition of the single-word topic is to "take the discussion off its track."

Well, in a sense, but it's necessary. I needed to clarify what's at issue. I needed to redirect us to the proper path.

This is misrepresenation based on quote-mining. Allow me to give the full context.

Xeno wrote:

Mick wrote:<snip>

Xeno wrote:You even take a shot at your other foot by claiming your definition of omnipotence is irrelevant in the thread titled "Omnipotence".

what i said was that it was not relevant to the present discussion. By this, i mean the discussion between crank and myself. And it's not. So, why take the discussion off its track?

Exquisite! To state one's definition of the single-word topic is to "take the discussion off its track."
Omitting yourself, whom do you imagine you are fooling with this level of evasion, Mick?

Mick's purported response avoids entirely my question, which is why is he unwilling to offer a definition of the very topic, yet continues to argue with others without allowing them to know precisely with what they are arguing. Sphynxcat raises the same issue but Mick avoids that for all he is worth as well.

Quote-mining and arguing by position-concealment are both sleazy and without intellectual merit.

More quote-mining follows. The next two quotations by Mick are given here in their full context before I address them as presented by Mick below.

Xeno wrote:

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:Finally, you agree you have no point anyway, as you have openly failed to respond to my query on that four times now.

I told you my point.

Oh, I seem to have mislaid this point, your position. Hang on, here it is:

Mick wrote: As for my point, it's simple: crank's "argument" gets it wrong.

So your argument by redefinition as purported rebuttal is the only point you have in this thread? You have nothing else to offer but fallacy of argument? So long as we have this confirmed.

As presented by Mick:

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:So your argument by redefinition

Redefinition? It's the traditional definition.

The unchallenged fact is that Mick responded by implying a different definition from that self-evidently being used by crank, and purported thereby to rebut. However, Mick, do enlighten us on the traditional definition. Some of us are too young to know of the particular tradition of which you speak. If you are unwilling to do so, then you are operating solely under evasion, a position without intellectual merit. Any question of sleaziness, I leave to others.

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:as purported rebuttal is the only point you have in this thread? You have nothing else to offer but fallacy of argument? So long as we have this confirmed.

No, that doesn't follow. It was only the point I was making at that time. It does not mean that I have nothing else to offer at all.

People who persistently offer nothing, even on relevant request, may reasonably be inferred to have nothing to offer. You can falsify this only by providing your relevant positions for argument.

I thought the next one could do with its prior context as well. Here it is:

Xeno wrote:

Mick wrote:What are your posts doing here other than to show up empty? Offer an engageable position or don't waste our time ..... or just carry on as you were.

Mick wrote:You're free not to reply.

You are free to offer us something cogent to which to reply.

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:If you come up with something like a defined position you are willing to defend, I might take your postings seriously. Don't lose hope though. One gets bored of laughing at the same thing and at least I can welcome Teuton into the thread . As I recall it, he is someone who shows the courage to hold a position and to argue it.

I'm happy that you're happy.

Should we be happy with evasion on the pretext of argument, or should we judge the worth(lessness) of the argument on that fact?

Oooh, my name lives on in a thread that can't seem to go anywhere, well, Mick ain't much of a navigator, refusing to commit to a destination, much less a current course. Whither to, Mick? I got tired of your continued refusal of my request to state your position, and you continue in the same vein.

I posit that you can't give a definition, that all definitions of omnipotence require copious qualifying to attempt wriggling out of the grips of incoherency. Even were you to able to find a coherent definition, then what? Where does that leave you? Your meandering voyage of irrelevant mental noodling will gain you a concept that is still empty as it cannot be shown how it could stand up to physical law, in other words, you still will run aground on the shores of evidence based reality.

Well, you know how it is with Small Gods mech. I couldn't risk letting you fade away for lack of mention.

Sphynxcat wrote:God's omniscience is also problematic. But I'll get on to that later Mick, as I have to go now. Cheerio old chap!

Okay, where were we ... ah, Omniscience. Yes.

Omniscience essentialy makes god a slave to his own knowlege; it means that he does not have the power to change his future mind. If anything, it makes him less powerful; given that omniscience necessarily entails detailed knowlege of what his own decision will be concerning any future event (otherwise it wouldn't be omniscience), then god does not have the power to stray from that decision. In other words, he cannot change what he already knows will happen.

It also makes a complete mockery of one of the essential tenets of the Christian faith: free will. If he already knows what you are going to do which will see to it if you are damned or not, then in what way can that be recounciled to a final judgement based on the idea that we all have an intrinsic and equal chance of being saved?

This is one of those areas, like the trinity, where the rationalizations used to explain the obvious implications achieve incredible levels of laughable, no one but a true believer can believe the absurdities. The idea that this omniscient, omnibenevolent god created billions merely to torture them for eternity can't compute in the believer's mind. The cognitive dissonance drives them to create tapestries of tortured convoluted logic of breathtaking inanity (thank you Judge Jones for a wonderful turn of phrase).

If god exist and is omnipotent, he can make tea ,if he makes tea, how do we know he did it ?
Basically if god has logical means to influence the world , how are we supposed to know ?

Sphynxcat wrote:

Sphynxcat wrote:Omniscience essentialy makes god a slave to his own knowlege; it means that he does not have the power to change his future mind. If anything, it makes him less powerful; given that omniscience necessarily entails detailed knowlege of what his own decision will be concerning any future event (otherwise it wouldn't be omniscience), then god does not have the power to stray from that decision. In other words, he cannot change what he already knows will happen.

Like the phrase "slave to his own knowledge".

This depends on god having a linear nature. If past, present and future are combined, then the conflict between omniscience and future action is eliminated. Annoyingly, it's promptly replaced by a conflict between omniscience and free choice. Even if god is non-linear, her/him/it must have freedom to act, but omniscience conflicts with this freedom.

CS Lewis illustrated (in the Screwtape Letters, I think) divine non-linearity with a line, representing time. We can see only a fixed point, but god can see it all. Or there's the more fun pop culture example of the Prophets on Deep Space Nine. (OK, geek culture example.) They had no concept of linear time, but interestingly, they weren't omniscient, so were hostage to events from our linear universe that impinged on their endless present.

If god's like that (lens-flare optional) then, as usual, it begs the question "is it/s/he still god?"

Byron wrote:CS Lewis illustrated (in the Screwtape Letters, I think) divine non-linearity with a line, representing time. We can see only a fixed point, but god can see it all. Or there's the more fun pop culture example of the Prophets on Deep Space Nine. (OK, geek culture example.) They had no concept of linear time, but interestingly, they weren't omniscient, so were hostage to events from our linear universe that impinged on their endless present.

Re: Dr Manhattan from Watchmen, if you're looking for another good fictional example. Again, immensely powerful, and able to perceive time non-linearly - and when it came down to it, pretty thoroughly useless despite his power. Interesting to note that he was never committed to any real action until his time-independant perception was clouded by Ozymandias' tachyon field-thingy. But anyway...