The Omniscient/Omnipotent Argument

[▽]

Well, i get what you're trying to say, but that gives some problems. Infinity is defined as not being a number, but representing behaviour, which is why arithmetic can't be applied to it. However, god is defined by human terms, which would make it obey human logic. Just as infinity (no true number) perfectly obeys arithmetic and more importantly, set theory, since the definitions and theories are built to match. The problem is that logic came before the definition of god, which is why they don't really fit together.

 

[Hidden]

However, god is defined by human terms, which would make it obey human logic.

Interesting argument. But 'human' terms such as omniscience and omnipotence do not necessarily obey human logic. They do not represent a reality that humans can comprehend or hold in their minds; they repudiate everything we know and experience as finite beings. What Needle's argument attempts to do is define these terms in a finite setting (a being that cannot die) and then disprove them by the conditions of that setting (thus cannot see its own death). But the moment we define omnipotence as a finite reality, we have departed entirely from what the term indicates--just as when we define infinity as a finite reality, we have departed from its representation of a behavior without bounds.

The problem is that logic came before the definition of god, which is why they don't really fit together.

Logic came before god? Are you sure?

 

[Chromatic]

If god IS immortal, then the fact that he can't see his own death means nothing, because there's no death to see.

 

[▽]

Interesting argument. But 'human' terms such as omniscience and omnipotence do not necessarily obey human logic. They do not represent a reality that humans can comprehend or hold in their minds; they repudiate everything we know and experience as finite beings. What Needle's argument attempts to do is define these terms in a finite setting (a being that cannot die) and then disprove them by the conditions of that setting (thus cannot see its own death). But the moment we define omnipotence as a finite reality, we have departed entirely from what the term indicates--just as when we define infinity as a finite reality, we have departed from its representation of a behavior without bounds.


Logic came before god? Are you sure?

I agree, a case of semantics and an unfortunate combination. The reason i put up the notion of logic is to see how we can even conclude things about deities. After all, if some kind of god doesn't adhere to logic, how can we even make statements about it, let alone have the vague idea he/she/it exists. I know how people can feel a presence or hear voices in their head, but there exist things like paranoia, reason (which often could be that voice) and mental ilnesses and the brain also likes to play tricks on people. It was just my way of showing how it's rash and unjustified to state a higher being exists in the first place.

Logic came first from the greeks, who started using a methodical way of reasoning, The details of the christian god were decided upon in the fifth century, so yeah, logic came first.

 

[Hidden]

The reason i put up the notion of logic is to see how we can even conclude things about deities. After all, if some kind of god doesn't adhere to logic, how can we even make statements about it, let alone have the vague idea he/she/it exists.

You have it precisely. We cannot make these assertations about god, even about his/her/its existence, and we suffer for this. It is the suffering of Job, which that book recognizes (if it is not satisfactorily resolved).

I know how people can feel a presence or hear voices in their head, but there exist things like paranoia, reason (which often could be that voice) and mental ilnesses and the brain also likes to play tricks on people. It was just my way of showing how it's rash and unjustified to state a higher being exists in the first place.

Perhaps so.

Logic came first from the greeks, who started using a methodical way of reasoning, The details of the christian god were decided upon in the fifth century, so yeah, logic came first.

The greeks had gods, and YHWH has been around for awhile.

 

[Hidden]

The reason i put up the notion of logic is to see how we can even conclude things about deities. After all, if some kind of god doesn't adhere to logic, how can we even make statements about it, let alone have the vague idea he/she/it exists.

You have it precisely. We cannot make these assertations about god, even about his/her/its existence, and we suffer for this. It is the suffering of Job, which that book recognizes (if it is not satisfactorily resolved).

I know how people can feel a presence or hear voices in their head, but there exist things like paranoia, reason (which often could be that voice) and mental ilnesses and the brain also likes to play tricks on people. It was just my way of showing how it's rash and unjustified to state a higher being exists in the first place.

Perhaps so.

Logic came first from the greeks, who started using a methodical way of reasoning, The details of the christian god were decided upon in the fifth century, so yeah, logic came first.

The greeks had gods, and Yahweh has been around for awhile.

 

[▽]

Well, i don't really take the bible serious, it's full of asumptions of both god and events back then. There are even assumptions about it's origins, so i really can't make much out of it since i use logic. But about the greek gods i can say something. They obeyed logic way more then the christian god does. Sure, they've had their impressive godlike qualities, but were way closer to humans. They had first needs just like humans, emotions and lived on mount olympus, which was supposed to be somewhere on the planet. I'm not saying they're more credible, but they are easier to work with, since they had qualities humans could recognise.

 

[Grace Falls]

If god IS immortal, then the fact that he can't see his own death means nothing, because there's no death to see.

This!

Well, this thread has been failed from the start. You're logic of God being only one is fail...
In reality, God can do many things, yet he still cannot do some. Like, he cannot lie, die, and other stuff. But does this really matter?

 

[gelandporn]

Well then, I guess your god isn't the god I'm attempting to disprove the existence of here(as your god is pretty much as good as not having a belief in god at all). I'm not talking about a god we know nothing of and never can(assuming you're an agnostic, and P.A.P. Principle Agnostic in Practice).

I have no god, I'm atheist.
I just don't hold it against someone to believe in a nonsensical God because this irrationality is, to a degree, a part of the human condition.

I'm talking of a god that we supposedly do know of, and supposedly do fully understand.

lol, thor.

 

[Hidden]

Well, i don't really take the bible serious, it's full of asumptions of both god and events back then. There are even assumptions about it's origins, so i really can't make much out of it since i use logic.

Job is a worthwhile read, whether you believe in its god or not. I take issue with its 'epilogue', however.

But about the greek gods i can say something. They obeyed logic way more then the christian god does. Sure, they've had their impressive godlike qualities, but were way closer to humans. They had first needs just like humans, emotions and lived on mount olympus, which was supposed to be somewhere on the planet. I'm not saying they're more credible, but they are easier to work with, since they had qualities humans could recognise.

All fair points. I still don't think you can use the Greeks to say that logic came before god, however.

This may seem a silly question, but what distinction do you draw between 'logic' and 'god'? What falls under the first category, what falls under the second? In an earlier post, you seem to suggest that god should itself fall under the category of logic. I need a clearer picture of this model.

Well, this thread has been failed from the start. You're logic of God being only one is fail...
In reality, God can do many things, yet he still cannot do some. Like, he cannot lie, die, and other stuff. But does this really matter?

If we are attempting to understand God as omnipotent, it matters very much.

 

[▽]

All fair points. I still don't think you can use the Greeks to say that logic came before god, however.

This may seem a silly question, but what distinction do you draw between 'logic' and 'god'? What falls under the first category, what falls under the second? In an earlier post, you seem to suggest that god should itself fall under the category of logic. I need a clearer picture of this model.

Logic is a systemic way of reasoning, starting from only axioms (often observations) and from other premises that follow from those axioms. For example, rain consists of water (observation), rain originates from clouds (observation) thus clouds consist of water. God is a higher deity, meaning it somehow has more abilities than matter/energy. A god isn't part oif logic itself, but i meant to behave according to logic. Sure, this doesn't always apply, qft (quantum physics) is a nice example. It's counterintiutive, but it has been observed. For something to be true, it must follow from empirism, follow logic or both of the aforementioned systems. This is why it is rash to make any statements regarding the existence of a higher being, a god.