"True" omnipotence invalidates theodicy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2013, 02:24 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2013 03:32 AM by absols.)
RE: "True" omnipotence invalidates theodicy
(01-10-2013 07:36 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  So, I was posting on another forum and got into a debate about omnipotence being logically impossible. The other poster responded that an all powerful god could even violate the laws of logic without it being a problem. I then pointed out to him that all of the current approaches to resolve theodicy (reconciling a world ruled by an all knowing, all powerful, all good god with the existence of suffering and evil) rely on some level of limits to God's power. As soon as he posits a god that can violate logic, he only leaves room for a god that is a monster.

you are confusing different facts that yourself know in being urself truth that is why u cant see the else which exist too

shit exist, by reversing facts

that is god

then u can understand how he could expect from that an omnipotence statu, shit living is of course freak

while omniscience is meant to erase the prints of omnipotence wills, it is the way of freak shit, suggesting constant being smwhere else that he doesnt care about at all

he means the present for him only he doesnt even think anything and he cant

that is why conscious is rejected, wat future when the minimum logics in nature known are fighted, crap shit only

but to me, the question is smthg else

how when reversing facts, things could appear simply opposites so equal in a way, while who has the power to reverse is the only present logically, so logics should support the victim defense in rights not as being livings
it proves to what extent they reached to reverse as if truth helped them for it, this is what i cant stand

what is shit cant b in power by destroying someone cant b equal to him bc appear still existing through himself value

i dont get it how it is let it free to that extent

of course rights will mean being individually when objective must b free for existence value in right logics so it is respected but also being right is knowing the value of self freedom so having no problem in being nothing really but also being true is the constant being present so the self is what matter mostly in being conscious, so of course rights wont move objectively so they would evolve soleley by realizing very difficult ends right

and not right of course would have no problem to steal from everything the quality of positive self existence and shit like god of course would do worse by staying still for infinite possessions as an idea that is always showing making the possible life

what knows that freedom is what exist right must jubilate by all possessions of stuffs and freak most evil mind will find the way to multiply things by enslaving rights after identifying them to matter in lies

but the question is the constant fact,, how is it possible to keep repeating everyday everysecond a life of that equality, as if it is the normal true fact while one representation is keeping eating and killing the other and that other representation is keeping working like hell for any superior realm to realize to rest out
how it could b continuing like that and using me to justify the fact they do always as normal showing my head being like sane individual being talking to normally and discussing with general opinions in a saloon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 02:49 AM
RE: "True" omnipotence invalidates theodicy
(02-10-2013 02:13 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 09:59 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This can be more simply stated as a question.

If god already knows exactly what he is going to do in the future (omniscience), does he have the power to do otherwise (omnipotence)?

No that isn't a sound question. The relation of foreknowledge to action would presumably be the same for persons human and divine. If the hypothetical god possessed contra-causal freewill it would be the same as if a human person possesed that; it would manifest as a "menu" of possibility dissociated from all antecdent influences. The salient difference would be that the human person--not having omniscience--would experience a temporal horizon, i.e. (s)he would only be able to anticipate future outcomes in a probabilitic fashion and would eventually reach the horizon beyond which it becomes near impossible to anticipate an outcome. The divine being with omnicience would have en extended "menu" and a comprehensive mapping of actions to outcomes and no temporal horizon. You appear to be conflating a question of epistemology with one of ontology.

What was the point of your link? It's a blog post where someone presents a bunch of professional opinions and news articles that suggest free-will is an illusion, followed by the blogger stating that "I do not believe it." He also said...

Quote:Fine. There is no contra-causal free will. There is only the kind of free will that allows us to make choices and decisions. For this to be a scientific matter, there needs to be some experiments that are strong enough to imply his conclusions. I do not see any.

It's great to see that assertion and fiat are still considered valid forms of argumentation...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 02:58 AM
RE: "True" omnipotence invalidates theodicy
(02-10-2013 02:24 AM)absols Wrote:  you are confusing too many different facts that yourself know in truth that is why u cant see the mean which exist too

shit exist, by reversing facts

that is god

then u can understand how he could expect from that an omnipotence statu, shit living is of course freak

while omniscience is meant to erase the prints of omnipotence wills, it is the way of freak shit, suggesting constant being smwhere else that he doesnt care about at all

he means the present for him only he doesnt even think anything and he cant

that is why conscious is rejected, wat future when the minimum logics in nature known are fighted, crap shit only

I submit my rejoinder Your Honour:

shit living tries to reverse facts but it turns to shit crap

omniscience is like the unused fork but unlike the monkey with leprosy would the monkey with leprosy purchase time share if it it didn't attend the so-called seminar

omnipotence comes after the jerry-rigged pig fucking machine only after

if your local ass chimp is lightly bitchslapped with a dessert fork does it complain? Some people say it does

"shit living is of course freak" indeed, who would argue with that? but does it go far enough shit dying is also of course freak

the manure of logic or the logic of manure that is shit logics

does the accordion factory know what is coming? that is the basic problem shit cunt crap

I rest my case
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
02-10-2013, 03:02 AM
RE: "True" omnipotence invalidates theodicy
(02-10-2013 02:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(02-10-2013 02:13 AM)Chippy Wrote:  No that isn't a sound question. The relation of foreknowledge to action would presumably be the same for persons human and divine. If the hypothetical god possessed contra-causal freewill it would be the same as if a human person possesed that; it would manifest as a "menu" of possibility dissociated from all antecdent influences. The salient difference would be that the human person--not having omniscience--would experience a temporal horizon, i.e. (s)he would only be able to anticipate future outcomes in a probabilitic fashion and would eventually reach the horizon beyond which it becomes near impossible to anticipate an outcome. The divine being with omnicience would have en extended "menu" and a comprehensive mapping of actions to outcomes and no temporal horizon. You appear to be conflating a question of epistemology with one of ontology.

What was the point of your link? It's a blog post where someone presents a bunch of professional opinions and news articles that suggest free-will is an illusion, followed by the blogger stating that "I do not believe it." He also said...

Quote:Fine. There is no contra-causal free will. There is only the kind of free will that allows us to make choices and decisions. For this to be a scientific matter, there needs to be some experiments that are strong enough to imply his conclusions. I do not see any.

It's great to see that assertion and fiat are still considered valid forms of argumentation...

The point of the link was to provide at least a provisional definition of contra-causal free-will not to argue my case. In the absence of a Wikipedia or Stanford definition of the term I resorted to a blog. The point is that a divine person would have contra-causal free-will and would experience no temporal horizon.

Re-read what I posted I provided you an argument.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 04:17 AM
RE: "True" omnipotence invalidates theodicy
(02-10-2013 03:02 AM)Chippy Wrote:  The point of the link was to provide at least a provisional definition of contra-causal free-will not to argue my case. In the absence of a Wikipedia or Stanford definition of the term I resorted to a blog. The point is that a divine person would have contra-causal free-will and would experience no temporal horizon.

Re-read what I posted I provided you an argument.

And everything you've said is mute because it's built upon assumptions.

You are assuming not only omniscience, but that it's your particular version that somehow happens to sidestep the core illogic of the concept itself. Before anything else, you need to overcome some problems; such as an omniscient being has no way of authenticating it's own omniscience to itself.

Your argument also starts with the big 'if' of contra-casual freewill, then fails to substantiate it. You've posited an A that gets you to your desired B, without showing that either A or B are true beyond your personal preference for them to be so.

Also, that blog does nothing at all to define 'contra-casual' freewill. All the guy in the post does is deny and disagree with the articles that he cites, but never gives any substance to why he disagrees other than to say "I do not believe it. I believe that people do have the free will to make choices, unless I see some very convincing evidence otherwise." But he doesn't put forward any positive case for or definition of 'contra-casual' freewill, and actually says instead "Fine. There is no contra-causal free will.There is only the kind of free will that allows us to make choices and decisions. For this to be a scientific matter, there needs to be some experiments that are strong enough to imply his conclusions. I do not see any." Fine, so he's not happy that all the articles he cites don't live up to his desired conclusion. I fail to see how that is at all persuasive.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 06:16 AM
RE: "True" omnipotence invalidates theodicy
(02-10-2013 02:58 AM)Chippy Wrote:  "shit living is of course freak" indeed, who would argue with that? but does it go far enough shit dying is also of course freak

the manure of logic or the logic of manure that is shit logics

I rest my case

fuck u piece of shit, when truth is killed then of course shit would b more then identified to kill more then obviously just for fun even, fuck u
as if when truth is freedom sacred values the opposite can b the obvious life without reason

shit logics dont exist piece of shit, u r forbidden from using the word logic too

there cant b logic but about relating separate different total things
so the value of the present freedom doing it

disgusting shit daring believing having access to conscious existence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 06:29 AM
RE: "True" omnipotence invalidates theodicy
(02-10-2013 06:16 AM)absols Wrote:  
(02-10-2013 02:58 AM)Chippy Wrote:  "shit living is of course freak" indeed, who would argue with that? but does it go far enough shit dying is also of course freak

the manure of logic or the logic of manure that is shit logics

I rest my case

fuck u piece of shit, when truth is killed then of course shit would b more then identified to kill more then obviously just for fun even, fuck u
as if when truth is freedom sacred values the opposite can b the obvious life without reason

shit logics dont exist piece of shit, u r forbidden from using the word logic too

there cant b logic but about relating separate different total things
so the value of the present freedom doing it

disgusting shit daring believing having access to conscious existence

then obvious life without relating shit would b more then of course shit, u r forbidden from using the present freedom sacred values the obvious exist piece of the value of shit, u r forbidden from using the obvious life without relating separate different total things
so the word logics dont exist piece of the opposite cant b logic but about relating shit would b more then obvious life without relating separate different total things
so the obvious life without relating shit, when truth is killed

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 08:37 AM
RE: "True" omnipotence invalidates theodicy
I find the notion of "omnipotence" and "omniscience" to be a rather bold claim . . . especially if the "omniscient" person doesn't KNOW that they don't know something.

But for a truly "omniscient" entity who may "know all possible futures", . . . even including those from himself, . . . there would STILL be a knowledge of "this IS what will happen because I saw THIS instant. . . . because I am omniscient". . . . therefore, that same entity couldn't also be omnipotent to change that forseen future, but would be bound to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeavonReye's post
02-10-2013, 08:49 AM
RE: "True" omnipotence invalidates theodicy
(02-10-2013 08:37 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  I find the notion of "omnipotence" and "omniscience" to be a rather bold claim . . . especially if the "omniscient" person doesn't KNOW that they don't know something.

But for a truly "omniscient" entity who may "know all possible futures", . . . even including those from himself, . . . there would STILL be a knowledge of "this IS what will happen because I saw THIS instant. . . . because I am omniscient". . . . therefore, that same entity couldn't also be omnipotent to change that forseen future, but would be bound to it.

Precisely, and I'm not sure Chippy sees this. Even as he is tries to argue, that his god has a 'menu' to choose from and can plan for all contingencies because of his perfect knowledge; that doesn't solve the paradox. Even in this scenario, a being with all knowledge would by definition already know what it would do out of all possible options (which 'menu' choices it was going to make). Now knowing this, does this being have the power to do otherwise? His argument simply doesn't solve this paradox.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 09:21 AM
RE: "True" omnipotence invalidates theodicy
Its simple really.

If you knew you had the ability to end all suffering with no effort, there would be no reason to hesitate... unless you are evil.

Theists get round this by saying God will sort it all out "In his own time"... Why? He's got all the time in the universe and more, so what's the holdup? People are suffering and dying right now... yet God and his mates watch with indifference.

There are three possibilities...

- God is unable to intervene, and therefore cannot be all powerful.
- God doesn't care or is unaware of us.
- God does not exist.

It doesn't really matter which of these is true, one thing is for certain. We can't rely on Him to sort our problems out, only we can prevent our own destruction.

So lets all have a wank...

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: