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
"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?
You seem to have an asymmetric sensitivity.
Or you're projecting...
"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
Good. You agree that descriptions can be made with some knowledge. So now it just falls to determine the limitations resulting from limited knowledge. Give me an example of where we can not make a determination? I did. Your turn.
It would be a trivial effort to google up scores of atheists all clamoring that they have concise examples of paradox based on the omni qualities(which are self explanatory). They all also would clamor loudly that they have found the one ... yet you fiddle about. Either you agree with me or you still stall.
You just acknowledged that incomplete knowledge limits our ability to reason. I pointed this out in the case of Todangst article. Either you are agreeing with me or you think Todangst article is arguing based on adequate knowledge. Which is it?
So your God expects us to swear unquestioning obedience to him on limited knowledge? With his track record? No chance. I'd ask if you knew his track record but that might mean you'd have to read the Bible.
You are trying to make the case for God based on your limited knowledge - why is a case against God invalid for the same reasons your case is sound?
"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 agree deducing a paradox in the case of the omni qualities is foolish.
In this thread, I've been asserting that concluding a paradox from the omni attributes is nonsense. Nothing more.
Atheists believe with out proof as well.
Surprised? Hardly. That is why I made the statement. You seem to consistently underestimate what is understood. This seems to be common with internet atheists.
Do you agree deducing the existence of a God on a fervent belief that he has those qualities is foolish?
If so, please stop doing it.
"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
Yep, you're projecting.
"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
Well if you notice the subject of the thread was why the omni paradoxes are invalid. So your reference could have been on subject. I was not sure.
Oh, yes, I'm a Christian. In this context your comment is non-sensical. You said I had "insufficient knowledge to make a leap of faith". Faith does not require evidence. You can see why I was surprised by your strange proclamation.
Ok. You don't need the word "paradox" in a sentence to establish it as a paradox.
If you read the first post you will see that my claim is that omni paradox claims are baseless. If you believe mine is baseless then you believe these are.
You are mis quoting me. I never made that statment. Reread the post you quoted from.
You seem to have fallen for the group think in this thread that I'm arguing for the truth of God. I was not. Reread and you should see what I was actually arguing.
I don't see Todangst rehashing a paradox. I do see him saying an omnipotent/omniscient/etc god is completely responsible for anything and everything he creates. Including for what those creations do. Would you agree with that?
You're claiming that one can't dispute the omni-attributes unless one has them. It's an attempt to keep your God from scrutiny. It failed miserably.
If you worship an omnimax god, why does he need you to leap to his defense?
"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
You made an explicit claim about this, did you not?
You, as a Christian, are presenting your conception of your god, complete with a set of properties which you believe that god has or embodies. If you define your god in the standard Christian method(omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc), then you are making particular claims about your god's nature, about what he can and will do. You either have defined the properties precisely enough to be able to make logical deductions, or you haven't. If you have, then a paradox can certainly be deduced. If not, then your terms are too vague to work with, and your arguments are built on nothing. If the axioms derived from your theology are incomplete, then making definitive claims based on them is a joke.
It is you who waffle. I don't even care about the original argument you pointed out(the snippet you posted is, in fact, not conclusive simply from the fact that it doesn't exclude a malevolent deity). What I am saying is that you can either define the qualities of your god precisely enough to make definitive logical statements about him, or you render yourself unable to make definitive statements about him at all. And you make definitive statements all the time.
And if you think that the qualities associated with your deity are uniform for all Christian believers, then you are also displaying an amazing lack of knowledge.
Are you having trouble following the English? I'm saying that you can't have it both ways. Either there is sufficient information, and you can make claims about your god that can be analyzed, or there is insufficient information, and your claims are as limited and conditional as the argument you are attempting to refute.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Making any claim at all based on faith and axioms which you claim are incomplete is quite foolish. If your god's qualities are defined enough to make belief tenable, then they are likewise complete enough to deduce a paradox.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
No, you assert that the paradox is impossible to define because the axioms are incomplete. And yet you base your faith and your statements about your beliefs squarely on the properties you claim are so ill-defined.
I would think that you would have grasped this concept by now. Atheism is a lack of belief. I lack a belief in your god, just as I lack a belief in Zeus and Thor, and I lack a belief in a monster living in the closet. I know that this is in contrast to your "believe first, find evidence in hindsight" method, but that's how rational people do it.
I disagree. I think I have consistently overestimated your ability to understand logic. Heck, I presented our argument to two people(an agnostic and an Evangelical Christian) this morning, and they both grasped the point and came to the conclusion that your argument is bunk in just a few minutes. And the majority of that time was spent reading it.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Just spit out the alleged paradox for goodness sake, and I'll respond.
I was looking for yours.
You know as well as I do that Christianity is defined. This is why a gaggle of atheists claim paradoxes. Either you believe these atheist paradoxes are wrong or the claims of Christianity used to build them are correct. Which is it?
You confuse thoroughness with waffling. Just because you don't care about the subject of the post does not mean that your reasoning can not be used to clarify it.
I think you may be confused. I'm not talking about my claims about God. I'm asking if you are in agreement, based on your own reasoning, that omni paradoxes are invalid.
No, you misunderstand deduction. Claiming to use deduction when one can not is less sound logically then holding a belief based on faith. You may not believe either case, but the former is certainly less sound logically.
Dang, it looks like I typed your username when I was quoting Kevin. My apologies.
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
What my faith is does not have any bearing on whether some third party has an invalid argument. Their argument either stands or it doesn't.
No problem. The response scripts used in this forum software has some issues, too.
You are correct that faith does not require evidence. That is the reason why irrational people like yourself embrace all sorts of odd beliefs, from Christianity and Scientology to astrology and psychic powers. Your credulity is astounding. As I said, rational people start from evidence.
Of course, since you have stated before that you and your family have been Christians most of your life, I would wager that you accepted Christianity on authority, not on the blind faith you seem to advocate.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
OK, I will type it again, for the reading impaired: you can't claim that your axioms are sufficient to support your claims and yet are too vague to determine the possibility of a paradox.
I am well aware of a lot of definitions of Christian theology. And any claim to a paradox that rests upon them has exactly the same logical basis as the religious claims arising from them. If your definition of Christianity is sufficient to make a definitive claim about your god, then it also is sufficient to utilize in debunking your beliefs.
Thoroughness? Surely you jest. Your whole thesis is an appeal to ignorance.
They are exactly as valid as the religious arguments drawn from the same axioms.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
No, you misunderstand basic logic(and reality, for that matter). Believing based on faith has no logical basis. The moment you make a series of fact claims, they are exposed to logical attack.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Really? So, where exactly are you getting the information that this third party does not "have complete understanding of the system in which you claim the paradox to have occurred?" You claim that they do not have this understanding, and they can't make a logical determination based on this incompleteness. How do you know that they lack this understanding? Is it based on something inherent in the argument, or is it based on your particular brand of faith? It is precisely at the point that you interject your claims that your faith impacts this argument.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
You mean you've been arguing all this time without knowing what you're arguing about?
"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
Wasn't that evident in the first post?
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Ok. So I'm correct in noticing that you used a non-sensical statement while you were attacking me for being irrational.
No, I have never struggled with the notion of faith. I've always seen the natural join between faith and science. I was 16 when I accepted Christ. It was definitely a conscious choice. I was pretty much a loner as a kid - kind of preoccupied with science. Neither parents were religious. I'm an old man now with a decrepit mind. Any illusion of reason I may exhibit is evidence of the miraculous.
Oh, I understand your position, and that is why I'm able to go one step further then you and point out that your reasoning then forces you to reject any and all omni paradox arguments.
So using your reasoning all omni paradoxes are bogus.
Well, thank you! See, I'm not the only one on this board that thinks omni paradox arguments are bogus.
Your confusion seems to stem from your lack of understanding of mathematical constructs. If you claim to use a construct(such as logic) and then do so errantly, such as making logical claims of a paradox when you are structurally incapable of doing so, this is a more sever logic error then believing outside of a mathematical construct.
We've went over this multiple times. You have been arguing vehemently that they do not have adequate information to make their argument. You are already obviously convinced of this.
Not really. You've been arguing that the paradox doesn't exist, not that you didn't see it.
Free will and omniscience can't exist together. Either the omniscient being knows what you will do before you do it or he's not an omniscient being.
Christianity tries to have both and can't see the problem.
"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
Oops. Confused him with paisley. My bad.
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
Disregard that. I was thinking of paisley when I wrote it. I don't know how, but I got you guys mixed up. As far stupidity and douche bagginess, you're not even in the same league as paisley.
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
Apologies to spike and OC
Likewise. I honestly don't know how I mixed you up with him OC. I apologize.
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
Not at all. I'm contrasting your method of understanding reality with the rational method of doing so. I don't think that accepting something on faith is actually a valid reason for believing anything in a definitive sense.
There is no such join. Science is a method for discovering empirical truth. Faith is a method of adopting beliefs without recourse to evidence(at least, in your definition; some Christians believe that faith is predicated on a certain level of evidence). The very fact that faith leads to an large array of contradictory conclusions shows that it is not reliable at all. If you are actually preoccupied with science, then you have surely noticed that faith is useless for discovering empirical truths.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Not at all. They are valid in any framework which claims to make definitive statements about your god.
Not at all. They are valid in virtually every version of Christian theology that I am aware of.
You keep claiming that I agree with you. I do not.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Any truth claim can be evaluated logically. Asserting a statement as true and then claiming it cannot be evaluated logically is nonsense.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
This makes me wonder if you are capable of reading. I have never argued that the original statement lacks adequate information, though I did note that it is not a conclusive argument, given that a malevolent deity could embody all of those properties. You have asserted groundlessly that the original argument was based on incomplete axioms. I have pointed out that any framework in which you can make a definitive statement is to that extent subject to logical analysis. Even your denial that the original argument is complete is a definitive statement, aside from considering the fact that you obviously believe in a series of definitive statements, since you keep making definitive claims. You have no grounds on rejecting the analysis aside from your own preconceived beliefs.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
What? I have never argued that. Are you mistaking me for OC?
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
There was a mixup with the quote tags.
Moving on.....
OrdinaryClay,
Maybe you should just back up and explain exactly what it is that you think Todangst was missing that would blow his argument out of the water.
-Triften
Even your buddies can not keep your spin straight.
What actually happened was that you argued yourself into a corner and now all you have left is wordy repetition - a wordy form of tag - very common on the atheist boards.
It is explained in the thread.
Apologies, that one dude.
OC's intentional lack of understanding has gotten me squirrely
"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
Except that it wasn't. You are simply claiming that your God is safe from scrutiny because of the attributes that his human creators gave to him.l
As humans created your God, it is only right that other humans should evaluate him.
"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