The Worst Argument in History

Michael said:
Can God forget something, be confused, be surprised, learn a new dance style, make a mistake, use the wrong word, think a new thought?
Click to expand...

I don't have time right now to properly addess this whole post, but I wanted to address this one part.
This argument is a silly semantical that is worthless and completely lacking reason - it's a trick of language.
It's no different than...
If God is perfect, then he can't make a mistake.
If God can't make a mistake then there is something he can't do.
Therefore: God is not omnipotent.

The argument has no meaning - no different than "God is not omnipotent if he can't make a square circle". The words are simply meaningless.
"God is not omnipotent if he can't do what's impossible" means no more than God can't do what can't be done.
God can do everything that can be done does not contradict God can't do what can't be done.
God can do anything that is possible to do (still with me, right?)
"that it is possible to do", in this case is redundant, as it can be assumed that, in a system in which paradoxes can not exist (which I believe I have established well enough earlier they can not) one can certainly not do what it is impossible to do, as that would be a paradox.
That leaves us with God can do anything.
God is all powerful.
As I said earlier - absolute knopwledge of the future would not be a member of the set "all", as it is a paradox, therefore it is nothing - non-existant - not part of all.

I think if I go further than this, I am simply repeating myself and that is both annoying and pointless in most cases.

If you take issue with anything I said above, however, please point it out and explain why.
 
one_raven said:
Then discussion at all is worthless, and since this is a discussion forum, you should stop wasting your time.

Take care, then.
Click to expand...

I am saying there are no best or worst arguments/discussions.
You are saying that because I believe so all discussions/arguments are worthless.

It is like saying:
Me: There are no tallest or shortest trees.
You: Then there are no trees

huh?...

now, neither I am or you are right. Since there are of course some awesome and some really crappy arguments/discussions.

But ultimately what I was trying to say is that I really don't think anyone should look/care for best and worst arguments...as I see all arguments being equally beneficial nevertheless.

As for taking care, I will stick around...so I am not taking care. Now...I am taking care but I am taking care of other things.
 
draqon said:
It is like saying:
Me: There are no tallest or shortest trees.
You: Then there are no trees

huh?...
Click to expand...

No, it's actually nothing like saying that at all.
It is more like...

I am having an arguiment with someone about whether Elm or Chestnut trees grow larger, and you step in and say "all trees are the same - there is no difference - none is taller or shorter than another".
Which, effectively means, "This discussion is pointless, because there is no answer".

If that's true in your mind, stay the hell out of the discussion and stop wasting your time and mine.

What does your incessant "all things are equal and nothing is distinct" bullshit add to any discussion at all? Ever?

Me - I like Blue.
Joe - I like Green.
You - All colors are the same, nonr is better than any other - so you are both right and both wrong.

If you refuse to ever take a position and state an opinion, then discussion itself IS worthless and pointless.
 
The worst part about all this, draqon, is that you are full of shit and a bald faced hypocrite.

You come into a discussion that you do not take a position on, and post some meaningless bullshit like what you posted above...
Yet on another point, you take a staunch, firm position, and insult those who does not agree with you.

You come into one post and preach forgiveness, love, compassion and understanding...
Then in another you advocate nuclear war, mass poisonings and genocide, because you did not like someone's joke.

You're full of shit, draqon, and you know it.
 
one_raven said:
The worst part about all this, draqon, is that you are full of shit and a bald faced hypocrite.

You come into a discussion that you do not take a position on, and post some meaningless bullshit like what you posted above...
Yet on another point, you take a staunch, firm position, and insult those who does not agree with you.

You come into one post and preach forgiveness, love, compassion and understanding...
Then in another you advocate nuclear war, mass poisonings and genocide, because you did not like someone's joke.

You're full of shit, draqon, and you know it.
Click to expand...

dude I am being sarcastic. That's all. I am never really truthful anywhere on here.
And when did I insult someone? I mean the way some people insult here...is way beyond what I say.
And, yes I do take a stance.

As for questions whats worth or best...I can't stand those questions. I really don't see the meaning of finding the best or the worst. My mom is like, "what is the best class you are taking in university?"....well truly I like/hate them all equally. There are so many good and bad things about those classes...it all equals out in the end. And I see this concept of equal good/bad in everything really.
 
draqon,

I just realized that you were referring directly to the thread subject, as opposed to the discussion between Michael, Celpha Fiael and myself over the past few days.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I still think you're full of shit, though. :)
 
one_raven,

It seems to me then it's the word omnipotent that needs redefined. God can do only what is logically possible.

However, even this said, as I pointed out, there are things that we human CAN do that God can not do.

For example, think or forget.

This isn't playing with words it's an observation about the nature of a being that knows-all that has occurred.

Is a being all-power if it does not have the ability to do something I can do - that is think or forget?

You may say this is a word game but it isn't. It's showing that the idea of an all-powerfull and all-knowing being is paradoxical and therefor can not exist.



I'll just ask this simple question:

Can you forget? Can you think?
Can God forget? Can God think?

If this brings up a paradox then we must redefine what it means to be all-powerful. You said all powerful is the ability the do anything that is possible. Well, I can forget. That is a possibility for me. As a matter of fact if I look over hundreds of thousands of millions of numbers scrolling on a screen I will not be able to remember them all. I will probably forget almost all of them. This is something that God can not by definition do. You say this is a play on words. No it is not. It's demonstrating that the idea of all-powerful and all-knowing is logically absurd as each is presently defined.

I pretty certain that me having the ability to do something that God can not do means God is not "all-powerful".

Wouldn't you agree? (notice we didn't bring up round squares this time) This is something I can do and God can not do.

Anyway, (I'll bold this because it's a serious question) how else other than showing absurdity or paradox or logical inconsistency, does one demonstrate that an all-knowing and all-powerful being can not logically exist?

Michael
 
Michael said:
God can do only what is logically possible.
Click to expand...
OK.
We have a starting point.
We agree that this omniscient and omnipotent God we are postulating can only do what is logically possible.

Your example (God can not forget) is wordplay because you take it out of context.

The ability to forget is not paradoxical in and of itself - that much is obvious.
On the other hand...

You are saying that an omnipotent God is a logical impossibility if he can't forget, something we mere mortals CAN do (as if it's an "ability").

"NOT forgetting" is the ability he has.
Omniscient implies he knows all there is to know - this he will know everything of the past - never forgetting is part and partial with this.

Of course he can't forget - he knows all.

You are building a paradox.

By asking, "Can God forget?", what you are really asking is, "Is there anything that God can't know?" and, of course, the answer is NO, because all-knowing is the definition.
"No, God can not forget" confirms his omniscience - not denies his omipotence.

As for "Can God think"...
Of course - why not?
Keep in mind before you answer this question, God does not have absolute knowledge of the future - therefore there IS unknown to him and he CAN be surprised.

Michael,
You are complaining about the lame arguments theists use to bolster thier position.
I think you should take a good, long, honest look at the following and seriously consider the answer...

Do you honestly use reason to find the answers to your questions, or do you already have the answers and look for arguments to bolster that position?
 
Hi one_raven,

I still have some questions.

1) Not having the ability to forget is not an inability? (or should I say, being able to forget, the possibility of forgetting, is not an ability?)
If there is an ability to know-all why can't there be an ability not to know all? If all beings knew all things then it seems if one of them suddenly didn't that this could be considered a new ability.

I seem to remember a Russian who couldn't forget and used to recall millions and millions or unnecessary facts and numbers and eventually went in sane. It seems to me if he had the "ability" to forget his life would have been much better. No?

2) RE: Thinking
Well, thinking is a process . Agreed? A question is posed, known information is contemplated and new information created in what (I think we can agree) is an answer. I'd have thought that an all-knowing God can not think because new information would never be created. But your God is not all-knowing in so much as it is all-recording. If God does not know the future then God, as I, will gain information as the future unfolds. This of course implies God is constrained by time just as we humans are. Perhaps a constrained God that is recording all information as it happens is logically consistent with omnipotent if not having information is not an ability. If this sort of thing is not an inability and God does not know the future then perhaps there are no inconsistencies. I'll have to think about it.

For this hypothetical God there are many situations where both God and I have equal "ability". Something I just don't think Theists usually agree to. In a game of chance. Both God and I will have an equal chance of winning in a true came of chance. Lets say the game of heads-or-tails. We both have a 50:50 chance to "guess" the future outcome as the coin is flipped. We are equal in this ability.

But what about this sort of question:
What is the Japanese word for Hello? I wonder if it's similar to Chinese? Is it the same all over Japan? Are there other forms of Hello? What's the most common? Hmmmm......let me look this up....
konichiwa!

You state this sort of thinking is not an ability because it involves not knowing something which is not an inability. Is this correct?
My ability to contemplate or think is not an ability after all?
I suppose I will have to know how you stand on that question: Is the process of thinking and contemplating an ability? If it is not then perhaps I will have to think of another situation where a recording device (aka God) lacks an ability that a human would have just for lack of having all information.

So, when I hear a joke and suddenly "get it" and start to laugh at the surprising ending - this is not an ability in your opinion? I'd had thought it was one ability that separates us from most other animals on this rock. I'd have thought this ability was what made homosapians unique. But if it's not an ability - what the hell is it?

Michael
 
Last edited:
Michael said:
You state this sort of thinking is not an ability because it involves not knowing something which is not an inability. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

No, that's not correct.
I said nothing of teh sort and am at a complete loss where you get that notion.
I feel like we are having two different conversations.
Is everything I am saying just flying right past you?

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.
 
one_raven said:
No, that's not correct.
I said nothing of teh sort and am at a complete loss where you get that notion.
I feel like we are having two different conversations.
Is everything I am saying just flying right past you?

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
This is the sentence that led me to this conclusion:

"No, God can not forget" confirms his omniscience - not denies his omipotence."

This is exactly where we disagree.
What does it mean to have omnipotence? You said, to do anything logically possible. Not make round squares or lift unliftable rocks. Just do something that can be done.

By definition if a being can not do something that is logically possible to do then it is not "omnipotent". Ergo, if God can not forget, and the act of forgetting is a possibility, then God can not do anything that is logically possible and is not by your definition omnipotent. Unless by omnipotent you mean do some things that are logically possible - - - but not all things. If that is the definition then maybe we are all omnipotent? There are things I can do that God can not do and things God can do that I can not do.

Michael
 
Frankly im equally as worried by this new brand of evangelical atheism as i am by evangelic theism. Its all very absolutist and largely based on large dollups of faith.
 
I'm also not convinced that a being that knows all can think.

You said that God, as defined, could not know future events - with certainty. In a real sense God is bound by time.

Can God travel backwards in time? Say, go back to the year 1000CE or is God only existing in the present - together with us?
 
heliocentric said:
Frankly im equally as worried by this new brand of evangelical atheism as i am by evangelic theism. Its all very absolutist and largely based on large dollups of faith.
Click to expand...
Oh come on :) It's just a logical debate.

Anyway, I'd hate to think any of my Theist friends would become Atheist. I like them as they are and it would seem weird if all of a sudden they didn't have a beleif.

Michael
 
Michael said:
Can God travel backwards in time? Say, go back to the year 1000CE or is God only existing in the present - together with us?
Click to expand...

You forget, I am not a theist, so to ask me what God can and can not do is just silly.
I am simply pointing out that an omniscient and omnipotent God is not a logical impossibility - as you seem so sure of - and I think I have done that successfully.

I say again...
You should seriously look at yourself and ask this question honestly...

Do you honestly use reason to find the answers to your questions, or do you already have the answers and look for arguments to bolster that position?
 
I am not convinced that a God can logically be both without doing some serious redefining of what each mean.

one_raven said:
You should seriously look at yourself and ask this question honestly...

Do you honestly use reason to find the answers to your questions, or do you already have the answers and look for arguments to bolster that position?
Click to expand...
In some instances I have an idea of what the answer is I am looking for and want to bolster that argument. In other cases I have no idea what will be the answer. Such as someone's opinion on a topic. Sometimes there is no reason. I like the color orange.

In this sort of debate I suppose I take the position that God can not be both and then set about defending that position. I could try to take the other position but I think it would be difficult because I truely think God can not be both.

That said, on the other side.

If God is omniscient and knows everything in the sense of a recording device and omnipotent is not all powerful but very powerful, can do anything that does not violate omniscience, then such a being could exist. Maybe one day we will be such beings? This isn't the sort of God that most people think of when they think all-powerful and all-knowing. They usually think knows the future and can damn well make a round square! That is the God that I meant could not exist. On that I am sure we both agree?

Michael
 
I agree that anyone who claims that God can do the impossible is deluding themselves.
That does not mean that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not exist.
 
An omniscient, omnipotent being could exist... if each state were properly defined so as to exclude paradox, which is almost no fun at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top