Comments on Todangst article "God the Ironworker"
Offline Todangst wrote in "God the Ironworker"
"It therefore follows that 'god' cannot be all powerful/all knowing AND the creator of the universe AND create beings with free will AND then find them guilty for their behaviors, because such a god must also be perfectly responsible for every single solitary aspect of existence that determines their guilt, in the first place. An omnipotent, omniscient iron worker is perfectly responsible for his metal, just as a omnipotent, omniscient creator is perfectly responsible for his creation."
The article is a standard boiler plate recap of the "paradox" arguments against God. The short and correct answer is you can not make claims of a paradox unless you have complete understanding of the system in which you claim the paradox to have occurred. You don't. You can not deduce divine omnipotence is paradoxical unless you have the proper set of axioms to start with. You don't.
- Login to post comments
So because humans created an internally inconsistent god to join all the others they've created, the god you like deserves your special protection?
If he is what you say he is shouldn't he be able to take care of himself?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I'll be blunt. Reguardless of what you believe, it will not change reality. You can believe whatever you wish, wholeheartedly from the deepest recesses of your heart and mind, it will not change anything. People have believed has deeply in their Horus and Thor has you believe in your god. We all know today how they wasted their time over imaginary deitys. In the future we will all know how you wasted your time on your god.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
While your evangelicalism is interesting it does not address my counter argument.
BTW - I thought atheists did not believe in knowing after death. I do agree, though, that we will both know. I'm just surprised you agree with this.
Your counter argument comes down to "God is divine because I believe he is and you can't argue against him unless you kiss his tushy like I do".
In other words - it's not an argument.
Who said anything about knowing after death? The way your God and his defenders are failing at their job - it may well be in the next 30 years or so.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Clay, this boils down to the paradox of hell which has been mentioned a ton of places on this site. No one wants to be saved. But some are. And that election is not based on works in the classic teaching. It does appear to be a double standard to thank God for salvation but not blame Him for allowing some of us to go to hell if He is ultimately in charge. The classic catholic teaching is that God handles sin sinlessly but those are just words that don't really explain much. At least, the widely misunderstood arminian interpretation leaves some things up to us. Whereas, the calvinist interpretation leads to immediate paradox.
It does not logically follow that God capriciously sends people to hell for no reason. Logically, the best we can say is some people would prefer hell, to heaven. And that implies that hell isn't that bad for those people. It's actually what they want. But if God can change some of us to be ready for heaven, why can't he change all of us. We can say some don't want to change, but originally none of us wanted to be saved either. Paradoxes are not given special treatment on this site. You don't get a pass. We can't use that as an excuse to not be logical. So Todangst does not have to answer. He has already answered this many times.
You, yourself would have to argue and explain how it makes sense and is NOT really a paradox to win this. So first you have to understand why it appears paradoxical to argue that it is not. Explain why it is better to not save everyone. This has lead some to believe in annihilation instead of hell.
I thought hell was supposed to be a place of punishment in your version? If hell is what some people want - what punishment would it be to give it to them?
It's not capriciousness - it's worse. If God made all and there are some people who want to go to hell then there are people who are going to hell for being what God made them. doesn't that seem odd - God's punishment for doing God's will?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
My goal is not to win. You should know that. I'm pointing out that the logical structure of Todangst argument is foundationless.
I'm not as worried about the unrepentant serial killer going to hell. That is who it is designed for. Someone who does not want to serve God for all eternity "could" be in more pain in heaven than in hell. Hell could be more like solitary confinement rather than being forced to play along with the rest of us. But that is just an analogy. The punishment in hell should fit the crimes. I believe God would be fair in this.
But the teaching is that we all deserve hell, but some of us are let off the hook. Yet it is not really explained why some of us believe and are saved and some arent. Thats why my mental model is that some dont want to be saved even if they knew it was all true. I imagine that our degrees of belief vary daily, but our deepest desires, whatever they are, do not. Thats just how I look at it.
And you haven't done that. You've merely asserted that God can't be understood because (you believe) he's divine (parentheticals mine).
You claim we don't have the tools to understand God's omnipotence - what tools do we lack that the humans who created God had?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
So you don't believe in the hell described in the Bible - a place of where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched, where there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth?
If the punishment should fit the crime - how does the eternal aspect fit in?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I think hell will be like that for some of the worst of the worst. I think it will be experienced differently for everyone, not one giant room. I think the same for heaven. Everything we do here matters and will affect our experience in heaven or hell. Its hard to explain why the punishment is eternal for finite crimes. Purgatory was an ok mental model until it was misused to sell indulgences. We all will need a purgation which could be instantaneous to do the final work to make us into people that won't sin in heaven. Maybe its such a radical change, it would be unkind to ask someone to go through it who deep down doesn't want to. Like an unchangeable desire to not serve God.
Greatest hell would be eternal life as a human being doesnt matter what form it took would all go insane
"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)
If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?
By your above post it is easy to see that you read things that ARE NOT writtin, you hear things that ARE NOT said, you believe things that ARE NOT true. The true believers of Thor and Zeus had the same short-comings: They have been proven by time and distence to BE WRONG. You and your fellow true believers will also be proven WRONG. If thou-ist does not-ith believe me; then thou-ist should ask-ith the true believers in Isis, Set or Baal because they were once as sure of thier gods as you are of yours.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Thank you. Despite my being correct atheists still try and build baseless paradoxes.
The problem is incompleteness not inconsistence. There is an important difference. I assume you understand the difference.
No, I'm asserting Todangst built an ill-considered argument with no base..
If the various explanations of the Christian god's nature, as taught by the various Christian groups, are insufficent to determine whether a paradox is possible, then they are likewise insufficient to render any judgment at all about said god. If they are insufficient to prove that, they are insufficient to prove god's goodness, god's mercy, god's wisdom, etc.
And I don't know of any Christian groups which would say that their conceptions of their god are so vague as to be unable to assert basic ideas. The best I have seen is the scholastic approach the Catholics take. In the end, however, they all retreat to an appeal to ignorance when faced with the problem of evil. So, in a sense, you are correct, Clay. But, in terms of making claims about evil, we have the same level of information and understanding when arguing from within a theological construct as the theist does. If you can say your god is both omnipotent and omnibeneficient, and actually be referring to a meaning for those words, then we can build an argument based on that.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Catholics built their whole theology on the argument from ignorance. At least when it comes to god. It does allow them to 'metaphor away' the parts of the Bible they no longer like- but it problematizes the 'historical narrative' of the need of human beings for salvation through Jesus.
And you haven't shown how Todangst has done so - you've only said "I think God is divine so we can't hold him to logical rules"
If you can break his argument, do so.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
All Christian theology is ultimately based on an appeal to ignorance. The Eastern Orthodox, for example, consciously rope off these areas with the term "mystery." This is partially in reaction to the way they perceive the Catholic church and to the scholastic tradition that Catholic theology is based on.
What I mean is that the Catholic tradition attempts to build logical arguments about god's nature. They fail not because of their logic, but because they accept a lot of unsupported premises. Well, that's not completely true. They also make unsupported leaps of faith, such as the jump Aquinas makes from some vague concept of a first mover to defining it as god, meaning the Christian god. This is in opposition to the emotion based arguments I get from a lot of Christians in arguments.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
All very true, all very correct. I've noticed that all Christianity, at some point, has to take the Athanasian position of god: 'Mystery of god at work- shut the fuck up.' Oh, and then special plead.
I'll make a confession here (heheh): I've actually read very little Aquinas. I did read some excerpts on his 'proofs' for god online- but I haven't really read that much. I've also been slogging through Augustine's 'Confessions'. Not fun.
Clay,
Are you trying to make a "God's logic is not our logic" argument?
Or do you feel that there are some exceptions to "God is all powerful" or "God is all knowing"?
(Or some other possibility?)
-Triften
Oh man. Did you just say you can't make claims of a ____ unless you have complete understanding of the system in which you claim the ____ to have occurred?
Actually, his point isn't to make it a paradox. His point is that it's all nonsense, particularly the notion that you can ascribe attributes to something you don't understand. So from your statement above, I'm guessing you agree with him.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Then you missed the essay's obvious satirical point.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Ruh-roh!
You love kicking the ass of those strawmen, don't you?
The article is not meant to illustrate a 'paradox'; like Will said, it's demonstrating the idiocy of stating that an omniscient deity is not responsible for the actions/behavior of what it has created. It's sort of like saying, "If you create a powder that explodes when exposed to open flame, you probably shouldn't claim to be shocked and dismayed when you expose it to open flame and it explodes,"
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Technically, paradoxes are usually known after-the-fact, when they are no longer paradoxes. Someone thought there was a contradiction or antimony between two statements. But then when looked at the larger system it turns out the two statements can both be true in a larger sense. But all we see are contradictory statements at first. It is not for the atheist to say why two statements about God might be paradoxical. That would just be conjecture and the burden of proof is on us. It is for us to show how they are paradoxical but true.
If a theology is complete enough for the believer to make a determination about their god, then it is complete enough for a non-believer to analyze from within the same framework. If a believer wishes to say that their god has properties X,Y and Z and therefore make some truth claim, they cannot then turn around and say that X, Y and Z are not applicable or precise enough to make counter claims. If the theology is too vague to make statements about logical consistency, then it is too vague to make any claims about at all.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Clay, do you suffer from some sort of complex? You're always talking down to everyone, saying they are inept or ill equipped for debate. It's seems to me to be more of a projection than anything. You are the one that constantly runs away from questions while somehow also, supposedly being the only one smart enough to know the answer to anything.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Well Stated.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
No, this is obviously not true. You can know many things about something with a subset of the full description. If your description is incomplete you just have to admit that your knowledge is incomplete. In the case of [omniscients omnipotence] you can not make strong deductions because your knowledge is incomplete.
Then build the argument.
No, I'm saying that when we use our logic we must use our rules of logic. Incomplete knowledge does not allow us to make strong deductions about omni qualities of God. If you do not have a full set of axioms you can not guarantee consistency when reasoning about omni qualities.
No.
No, you are incorrect. You should read more closely.
Todangst
"It therefore follows that 'god' cannot be all powerful/all knowing AND the creator of the universe AND create beings with free will AND then find them guilty for their behaviors, because such a god must also be perfectly responsible for every single solitary aspect of existence that determines their guilt, in the first place."
Agreed.
Christians have no burden of proof. The goal of Christianity is not to reason people into the faith. It can not be done. People are either drawn or they are not drawn. Christianity is built upon faith. There is falsifiable evidence and circumstantial evidence in Christianity for the edification of believers. Faith is always the corner stone in the end. Either you believe or you don't.
If your definition of omniscience and omnipotence is so vague as to be useless in defining a paradox, then it is equally useless for explaining your god. It would be like defining good with enough vagueness to include evil as well.
Start by defining your terms. In this case, the attributes of your god. If you can't do it without appealing to mystery or ignorance, then your theology is useless for explanation and doesn't even rise to the point of needing refutation.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
How interesting. Apparently we can't know enough to make a claim about your god's omnipotence, and yet...
You can magically claim that YOU have enough information to make the above determination.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
As I said, you can know things with out a full description. This applies to anything being described.
Is this naivete, stupidity or unblemished arrogance?
Well, at least you are honest about reasoning into faith. Your irrational beliefs are far too flimsy for that.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
And, as I said, if you have insufficient information to make a logical determination, then you also have insufficient information to make a leap of faith like you think is warranted.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
This is absurd. I can describe the front of a building without knowing what the back looks like.
We just did - omnipotent and just. Stop stalling.
I just demonstrated this was not true.
I believe based on faith. I did not deduce his omnipotence. This has been said many, many, many times.
I have never been in an atheist debate without the atheist resorting to personal attacks. And who said atheist beliefs do not result in predictable behaviors.
You are being vague now. What leap of faith do you refer to?
And if your description of the front contains logical inconsistencies or is so vague as to allow no analysis, it doesn't matter what the back looks like. If your definition of the goodness of your god is insufficient to determine whether a particular action of his would be good, then your definition is useless.
Wonderful, you can repeat words. Now define them. Tell me what an omnipotent being can do, and can't. Tell me what an omnibenevolent being will do, and won't. Tell me what an omniscient being can know, and can't. Follow that up with definitions for sin, redemption, heaven, hell and the rest of your theology. If you can do so without resorting to an appeal to ignorance or mystery, then we'll debate. If you can't define the terms you think are worth embracing a religion for, then your beliefs are too vapid to bother with.
You've demonstrated little more than your ability to be obtuse so far.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
And you demonstrate amply why this is a foolish method for understanding reality.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Indeed. When someone presumes that their particular brand of irrational nonsense should be swallowed without proof, I am forced to wonder at their mental state. You are either naive, stupid or arrogant in presuming that your religion somehow doesn't require proof, and you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Are you not a Christian? Did you not just refer to your acceptance on FAITH of your god's omnipotence? Did you not just claim that you know for a fact that there are no exceptions to your god's omnipotence or omniscience? Do you even read what you type?
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
...I can't find the word 'paradox' in here. Is this like one of those Where's Waldo puzzles?
I've never been very good at those.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Well, then I am simply at a loss as to why you are even debating with us. By professing faith, you're admitting that you are incapable of establishing the credibility of your claims, so this discussion is over before it even began.
Lol, look harder. It's like the puzzle on the last page, where everybody looks like Waldo and the only way to determine the real Waldo is by observing that he has one extra red stripe on his shirt or something.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
EDIT: Removed reply because it is obvious that Clay wants to eat his cake and have it too.
He wants to argue for his god, but no one else can; assert things are true, then blow off everyone else; debate god, but hold his claims true on faith.
I agree, it was over before it started. I kind of wonder why he bothered to post at all.
-Triften