|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2001 : 07:18:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't have any idea what this means: “a task impossible for one who can perform any task,” but I don't think it is analagous to the phrases I am talking about. Round squares are mutually exclusive propositions; I cannot logically postulate a being that would be able to create them. I can, however, logically postulate a being that would be able to create an object heavier than said being can lift. I cannot, however, label this being as omnipotent unless I use a qualifier.
I do not see how a qualifier is going to help. Saying that an omnipotent being can instantiate any task that it cannot perform is utter contradiction, it is the same as saying “there exists a task which is impossible for someone who can perform any task.”
quote:
Either way, what we end up with is a definition of omnipotent that is bound on all sides by logic or a creator that is necessarily something less that wholly omnipotent.
All definitions are “bound on all sides by logic” if that mean merely that they do not carry any linguisticvalue (or subjective meaning) when invoked in type crossings or contradictions, as is the case in the arguments at hand.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 07:37:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I don't have any idea what this means: “a task impossible for one who can perform any task,” but I don't think it is analagous to the phrases I am talking about. Round squares are mutually exclusive propositions; I cannot logically postulate a being that would be able to create them. I can, however, logically postulate a being that would be able to create an object heavier than said being can lift. I cannot, however, label this being as omnipotent unless I use a qualifier.
I do not see how a qualifier is going to help. Saying that an omnipotent being can instantiate any task that it cannot perform is utter contradiction, it is the same as saying “there exists a task which is impossible for someone who can perform any task.”
So we are back to the beginning. Omnipotence can by definition only include those actions that are logically possible by the actor. Therefore, the omnipotent actor is by definition bound by logic. You could have saved a lot of trouble by conceding this earlier.
quote:
quote:
Either way, what we end up with is a definition of omnipotent that is bound on all sides by logic or a creator that is necessarily something less that wholly omnipotent.
[quote]
All definitions are “bound on all sides by logic” if that mean merely that they do not carry any linguisticvalue (or subjective meaning) when invoked in type crossings or contradictions, as is the case in the arguments at hand.
I have no problem with this, assuming you acknowledge it is the definition of 'omnipotent' that must be limited.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 08:15:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I guess modern theologians have a nasty habit of not answering the questions asked. The idea that an omniscient creator is not responsible for certain inconvenient portions of reality is tenuous at best, but I digress.
I claimed above that most theologians would see language as a human construct, and that logic is an aspect of language. What question was thus left unanswered?
The theologians' answer, summed up, "God is not responsible for the thing that he knew would be created by his creations" is effectively a non-answer.
quote:
quote:
Logic is hardly a mere component or consequence of language. In fact, language is a mere representation of human thought.
Typically, logical rules are applied interchangably to the expressions of language (sentences) and the meanings thereby expressed (propositions), but more strictly it is the propositions, the meaning behind the language, which is governed by logic.
This is by no means all that logic is. Logic is valid reasoning, along with the study of the principles of valid reasoning.
quote:
quote:
Higher primates with lesions in the equivalent of Broca's Area are still perfectly capable of logical actions. Surely you realize the left hemisphere of the brain is by necessity a much more ancient development than a language-specific area?
Logical actions? Such as? I've no idea what you are speaking about. When I say logic, I refer to such things as valid and sound inference in argumentation, and the meaningful interactions of such things sentences, negations, disjunct, conjuncts, etc., the typical fodder found in logic textbooks.
I am going to simplify, so work with me  Suppose I am shown that coupling a length of coaxial cable with a connector on the back of my digital cable box will make moving pictures appear on the TV. I can logically conclude that coupling cable to a connector on the back of my cable modem will make moving pictures on my monitor (hey, I said I was simplifying  ) without knowing the first thing about cable modems, or knowing what any of the component parts are called. I use this example because my less-than-techno savvy mother managed to halfway connect her cable modem this way and described it to me as, "screwing the metal thing on to the metal thing just like the back of the TV." It is difficult to see how language is necessary for this kind of deduction.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 18:02:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
I don't have any idea what this means: "a task impossible for one who can perform any task," but I don't think it is analagous to the phrases I am talking about. Round squares are mutually exclusive propositions; I cannot logically postulate a being that would be able to create them. I can, however, logically postulate a being that would be able to create an object heavier than said being can lift. I cannot, however, label this being as omnipotent unless I use a qualifier.
I do not see how a qualifier is going to help. Saying that an omnipotent being can instantiate any task that it cannot perform is utter contradiction, it is the same as saying "there exists a task which is impossible for someone who can perform any task."
So we are back to the beginning. Omnipotence can by definition only include those actions that are logically possible by the actor. Therefore, the omnipotent actor is by definition bound by logic. You could have saved a lot of trouble by conceding this earlier.
Back to the beginning indeed, since I made it clear at the outset of this very thread that, “omnipotence can by definition only include those actions that are logically possible.”
The meaning of your “bound by logic” metaphor is exceedingly obscure. It seems you are imputing limitation where there is none.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Either way, what we end up with is a definition of omnipotent that is bound on all sides by logic or a creator that is necessarily something less that wholly omnipotent.
All definitions are "bound on all sides by logic" if that mean merely that they do not carry any linguistic value (or subjective meaning) when invoked in type crossings or contradictions, as is the case in the arguments at hand.
I have no problem with this, assuming you acknowledge it is the definition of 'omnipotent' that must be limited.
Just as I did some time ago.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 18:36:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
I guess modern theologians have a nasty habit of not answering the questions asked. The idea that an omniscient creator is not responsible for certain inconvenient portions of reality is tenuous at best, but I digress.
I claimed above that most theologians would see language as a human construct, and that logic is an aspect of language. What question was thus left unanswered?
The theologians' answer, summed up, "God is not responsible for the thing that he knew would be created by his creations" is effectively a non-answer.
Accordingly to your (somewhat unusual) standard of responsibility, perhaps this is so. However, not everyone would impute responsibility of a parent to his or her child's creations, even given foreknowledge. If I knew beforehand that my son was going to create an amazing finger-painting, would anyone claim that I was responsible for his work or that the credit should go to me?
quote:
quote:
quote:
Logic is hardly a mere component or consequence of language. In fact, language is a mere representation of human thought.
Typically, logical rules are applied interchangeably to the expressions of language (sentences) and the meanings thereby expressed (propositions), but more strictly it is the propositions, the meaning behind the language, which is governed by logic.
This is by no means all that logic is. Logic is valid reasoning, along with the study of the principles of valid reasoning.
I claimed that meaning (thought) is governed by logic, and you said that logic involves principles of valid reasoning. I fail to detect the difference here.
Most logicians would not make the above claim, “logic is [identical to] valid reasoning.” They would say instead that logical reasoning is both valid and sound.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Higher primates with lesions in the equivalent of Broca's Area are still perfectly capable of logical actions. Surely you realize the left hemisphere of the brain is by necessity a much more ancient development than a language-specific area?
Logical actions? Such as? I've no idea what you are speaking about. When I say logic, I refer to such things as v |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 22:43:17 [Permalink]
|
Sorry to disappear on you there. I had to go to New York to see my publisher.
Now, as you were saying…
I see what you are syaing. Essentially, my argument is that Slater's proof requirement is set too high, but he can set it where he would like to, I have to respond on his terms, to a degree. We each set our own proof requirement. I'm not sure that logic is universal. I'm not saying it is not, just that I'm not
convinced. To say that the same proof will convince everyone is ridiculous. I'm sort of new at this skeptic stuff, correct me if I am wrong.
My standards of proof are too high? I'm not sure that I set standards, but if I didn't I'll rectify that now.
In the vegetable bin of my refrigerator I think that there are three oranges. I state that as a matter of faith, as I don't believe that my wife ate one for breakfast and I know there were three last night. But the best I can do at the moment is to say I think that there are three oranges. For me to say that I know that there are three oranges there would require that I do a simple scientific experiment (get off my ass and look).
Like all scientific experiments the results I found by doing it would be reproducible by an independent tester. That is, if I asked you to look in the bin you would come to the same conclusion about the existence of oranges that I had.
After having observed the oranges you would only then be able to tell me about their properties. Were they orange or yellow. Fresh or moldy. Sweet or sour. Were they actually there or was the bin filled with lettuce and red peppers.
You might have some idea in your head about what oranges are like and you might even feel the need to tell me about them. But until you preformed the experiment of opening my refrigerator, pulling open the bin and looking there is no way for you to know.
My standard of proof for these oranges is pretty darn low. I don't need you to use any super-duper scientific equipment, just simple observation and an honest report of your findings.
My standards for proof of the existence of god are no higher than they are for oranges. Don't tell me about god's attributes (omnipresent, omniscient, sweet or sour) until you can give me a reproducible experiment to demonstrate how you know these things.
If you have no way of knowing these things then as an honest man you must cease saying that you actually know them.
I don't think that I am setting overly high standards for the existence of god. Do you set your standards for the existence of the being, that is the bases of the philosophy that you guide your entire life by, lower than that the standards you use to determine the existence of a snack?
The books that I recommended on Mithra and Dionysos are all in print and should be available at any decent sized public library (I don't know if you are in a city or the country). They are all available (I just checked) at Amazon.com.
-------------------------------
Vegakitty, thanks for reproducing the first blurb of this thread. We were running off on different tangents. But you do get my VERY HARD GLARE because you just say that you believe because you want to believe. If you'll re-read the first blurb you'll see that we are talking about proof. The fact that you want there to be a god in no way implies that there actually is. No more that the fact that I want a full head of hair implies that I actually have one.
----------------------------
Much like the Schrodinger's Cat experiment in Quantum Physics my merely observing the three oranges mentioned above caused one of them to wink out of existence.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Edited by - slater on 08/13/2001 22:47:54 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 23:02:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
So we are back to the beginning. Omnipotence can by definition only include those actions that are logically possible by the actor. Therefore, the omnipotent actor is by definition bound by logic. You could have saved a lot of trouble by conceding this earlier.
Back to the beginning indeed, since I made it clear at the outset of this very thread that, “omnipotence can by definition only include those actions that are logically possible.”
So what does this mean for our paradox? Is it now true that an omnipotent creator can lift anything it creates? Or is the question no longer meaningful for some obscure reason?
quote:
The meaning of your “bound by logic” metaphor is exceedingly obscure. It seems you are imputing limitation where there is none.
Did you not just agree that logic is a limiting factor of the possible actions of an omnipotent creator?
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 23:44:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
The theologians' answer, summed up, "God is not responsible for the thing that he knew would be created by his creations" is effectively a non-answer.
Accordingly to your (somewhat unusual) standard of responsibility, perhaps this is so. However, not everyone would impute responsibility of a parent to his or her child's creations, even given foreknowledge. If I knew beforehand that my son was going to create an amazing finger-painting, would anyone claim that I was responsible for his work or that the credit should go to me?
I don't think I've ever heard the argument that god has a drive analogous to the human biological imperative to procreate. There is a significant body of data that suggests there is a basic unit of life that seeks only to replicate. I suspect an immortal god would have no such drive. Likewise, I have never heard a theological argument that humans are purposeless. If an asexual creator purposefully creates an quasi-autonomous being with foreknowledge of said being's actions, whether those actions constitue the end-purpose or not, I would argue that the responsibility indeed lies with the creator. If I build a Turing robot for the purpose of, say, securing peace in the Middle East, with the knowledge that the robot will kill Arafat, I am responsible for killing Arafat even though that was not the robot's end-purpose.
quote:
Most logicians would not make the above claim, “logic is [identical to] valid reasoning.” They would say instead that logical reasoning is both valid and sound.
This is not true. An argument can be valid even if the premises are false. Mistakes that affect the truth value of premises do not indicate that an argument is not logical. Do you propose that computational errors are illogical by definition?
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Higher primates with lesions in the equivalent of Broca's Area are still perfectly capable of logical actions. Surely you realize the left hemisphere of the brain is by necessity a much more ancient development than a language-specific area?
Logical actions? Such as? I've no idea what you are speaking about. When I say logic, I refer to such things as valid and sound inference in argumentation, and the meaningful interactions of such things sentences, negations, disjunct, conjuncts, etc., the typical fodder found in logic textbooks.
I am going to simplify, so work with me Suppose I am shown that coupling a length of coaxial cable with a connector on the back of my digital cable box will make moving pictures appear on the TV. I can logic |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 00:10:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Whether you consider these true christians or not - they were following the instruction of jesus - You shall not suffer a witch to live.
quote:
I am not aware that Jesus said this, what verse? Witchcraft, along with other 'black' arts was prohibited in Deuteronomy.
This particular quote, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is Exodus 22:18. I guess it goes without saying (being Old Testament) that it was God and not Jesus who made this law. He set the Hebrews free, then He gave them a LOT of laws. Go figure.
Wendy Jones
Thanks Wendy, got to thinking about it - I think what I was thinking of had something to do with gathering twigs taht had fallen from the tree. Not believing in Christ.
My apologies all...
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 01:30:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
So we are back to the beginning. Omnipotence can by definition only include those actions that are logically possible by the actor. Therefore, the omnipotent actor is by definition bound by logic. You could have saved a lot of trouble by conceding this earlier.
Back to the beginning indeed, since I made it clear at the outset of this very thread that, "omnipotence can by definition only include those actions that are logically possible."
So what does this mean for our paradox? Is it now true that an omnipotent creator can lift anything it creates? Or is the question no longer meaningful for some obscure reason?
The latter. Sorry about the obscurity, perhaps I've failed to communicate clearly. However, if you dream of a Ph.D. you'll need plenty of practice with semantic obscurity, especially if you are studying philosophy.
In any case, I explicitly stated why the question is not meaningful; it is because it makes use of meaningless phrases such as "a rock which cannot be lifted by someone who can lift anything."
quote:
quote:
The meaning of your "bound by logic" metaphor is exceedingly obscure. It seems you are imputing limitation where there is none.
Did you not just agree that logic is a limiting factor of the possible actions of an omnipotent creator?
No. For the nth (and hopefully final) time, logic delimits which actions are definable. An omnipotent being has the ability to perform any action whatsoever. Such things as you've described are simply not actions, nor are they thinkable, meaningful propositions at all.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 02:52:48 [Permalink]
|
Tergiversant, PhDreamer, do you guys remember that Our Gang where Spanky and Alfalfa were arguing over who was stronger Tarzan or Superman?
Your debate is missing the one crucial factor that theirs was.
The god whose attributes you contest has not been shown to be anything other than a fictional character in a couple of old books.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 07:20:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
So we are back to the beginning. Omnipotence can by definition only include those actions that are logically possible by the actor. Therefore, the omnipotent actor is by definition bound by logic. You could have saved a lot of trouble by conceding this earlier.
Back to the beginning indeed, since I made it clear at the outset of this very thread that, "omnipotence can by definition only include those actions that are logically possible."
So what does this mean for our paradox? Is it now true that an omnipotent creator can lift anything it creates? Or is the question no longer meaningful for some obscure reason?
The latter. Sorry about the obscurity, perhaps I've failed to communicate clearly. However, if you dream of a Ph.D. you'll need plenty of practice with semantic obscurity, especially if you are studying philosophy.
In any case, I explicitly stated why the question is not meaningful; it is because it makes use of meaningless phrases such as "a rock which cannot be lifted by someone who can lift anything."
I think I may have run headlong into a brick wall. I may have missed a sign along the way.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The meaning of your "bound by logic" metaphor is exceedingly obscure. It seems you are imputing limitation where there is none.
Did you not just agree that logic is a limiting factor of the possible actions of an omnipotent creator?
No. For the nth (and hopefully final) time, logic delimits which actions are definable. An omnipotent being has the ability to perform any action whatsoever. Such things as you've described are simply not actions, nor are they thinkable, meaningful propositions at all.
I believe I have made a massive fox pass here. It seems I am far more ignorant than I have previously given myself credit. Quite an auspicious debut on this board, I must say. Win some, lose some I suppose.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 07:22:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tergiversant, PhDreamer, do you guys remember that Our Gang where Spanky and Alfalfa were arguing over who was stronger Tarzan or Superman?
Your debate is missing the one crucial factor that theirs was.
The god whose attributes you contest has not been shown to be anything other than a fictional character in a couple of old books.
I am merely a glutton for punishment, as you will soon see.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 07:41:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
remember that Our Gang where Spanky and Alfalfa were arguing over who was stronger Tarzan or Superman? Your debate is missing the one crucial factor that theirs was.
The god whose attributes you contest has not been shown to be anything other than a fictional character in a couple of old books.
Simply brilliant. Sometimes less truly is more.
Wendy Jones |
|
|
|
theatheistknight
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 07:59:58 [Permalink]
|
When you say you beleive in God, you have to ask yourself, which God do you believe in. If you beleive in an all loving god, you must not be a christian. If you believe in the teachings of the Bible, then you must realize that a god of love must not exist.
When I am debating with xians, I usually come across two of the following statements:
a) God sends those who do not believe to hell
b) No one can know the mind of God.
If no one can presume to know the mind of God, then what is the point. Perhaps he wrote the Bible to throw us off. Perhaps God has a weird sense of humor, and he sends those who follow the teachings of the Bible to hell.
Because God is above our standards of anything, we can not hold him to it. Whereas we punish muderers, he may reward them.
That is if he exists at all.
Richard J. Allen |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
