This all seems a bit too complicated for a discussion on gods and the supernatural .... I mean, if there existed a creator of the universe, wouldn't it's nature have to be understandable even to toddler, or an adult with a toddlers mental/intellectual capacity ... it just seems odd that the the most powerful and most creative intelligence in the history of history would not have a way to be known simply ... and would rather allow itself to be discussed with reference to obscure and alienating mathematical formulas and Schrödinger's cat (which I had to look up). 

Yeah, I've always been bothered by that verse that we must "become as little children."  Most Christians will say this has to do with humility and subservience though and not reasoning... I would argue that anyone with children will see that they are certainly no more humble or subservient than adults- just more ignorant... perhaps that's what Jesus meant.

That is precisely my point Gator. Omnipotence remains within reason but you can't go outside logic to decide if it's coherent or incoherent in its whole definition, that would be selective. To the point there is a part of omnipotence which is not classically logical, like the Euler identity since you're mentioning it, it's true but why is it true in spite of it's obvious classical faults? Well what right do we have to say anything to that if we don't even look at it?

 

hmm, I think you have to look more closely at the context of my statements, to be honest. I was saying that p= p^~p was an original theology, I wasn't submitting it as a proposition sanctioned by formal logic. The object of that was to point out that God makes a rock he cannot lift does not argue against theological definitions of omnipotence it actually captures the essence of the definition in a more than a few cases.

As for the Euler identity there is absolutely no reason to add DNE to that, it's a proven formula, it is true e^(ipi) + 1 equals zero. e^(ipi) draws a hemisphere of the unit circle from 1 to -1, it is a valid mathematical argument that you can add a valid integer (1) to, to reach integer 0.

 

See this gets difficult now because it is more acceptable to just presume that the epistomologies aren't convergent, and I can just import to Christianity as well. It doesn't work that way, I'll make that case now. If Christian theology doesn't make it's own case for a superpositional state of visible matter then it simply doesn't have any share in this, it doesn't frame its godhead in those terms, if it does, then there is no importing involved it's a convergence.

I would probably argue for relativism, just a little, but I wouldn't count on it to hold up my argument entirely.

 

I don't need to make a case for the utility of irrationality, there already is one and we would all agree on it except that the RRS purpose, which is entirely noble in principle, makes for a very one-eyedness about irrationality. Is there such a thing as a rational responder who enjoys base jumping, mad magazine, picasso? I think so, and I rest my case, irrationality does more than get people believing silly things, it makes them laugh and cry and race cars too, it's the spice of life.

 So, we cannot have a coherent conversation about God's omnipotence (or His morality for that matter [see Job 40-41]- and consequentially, His salvation plan) that is accurate, because there are parameters outside of human understanding.  Since the parameters of omnipotent God lie in the ambiguous realm outside of classical logic and this epistemological problem may ultimately thwart the ultimate truth of any logical or empirical claim, why would God allow such useful systems to exist for humans, with so much applicable consistency, if they are ultimately misleading?  Since there are elements of God’s nature and morality that humans simply cannot understand without faith, and consequentially, elements of the coherency of the salvation plan that humans simply cannot understand without faith, why should humans be eternally damned for their innate lack of enough essential knowledge to coherently grasp the salvation plan of Christian theology?

But why wouldn't/couldn't your proposition, theological or not, not also contain DNE?

Yes, but how does the Euler identity prove the existence of God (you capitalized "One" in "From nothing, everything and One in everything&quot? 

So which is it?

If (what is perceived as) irrationality in experience brings more happiness than it detracts (you gave some good examples), isn't it ultimately rational?  There are limitations on potentiality, as viable and inviable possibilities in the universe.  The cat may be dead or alive, but it is never a grilled cheese sandwich.  Why is it never a grilled cheese sandwich? (or is it?!)

Scottmax,

There were problems with the quote function in my last post. Here's the fixed version, with an added comment at the bottom:

 Yes, Scottmax. I asked you for good reasons to believe your premise, and you simply stated that I've "refused to respond" (?). You have erected an impenetrable wall known as the "I don't have to defend my argument if I don't want to." The only way I can respond to your argument, in your view, is if I offer some complicated theodicy about what I think God's reasons are. This indicates that you lack familiarity with the way the argument from evil is currently discussed in the literature, despite your claims that you've studied it for so long. Moreover, you aren't familiar with the standard rules of argumentation.

No, refusing to defend your argument is a conversation-stopper.

Ok, metaphysical possibility is fine, then.

I want to ellaborate on what I mean when I say you're unfamiliar with the standard logical rules governing arguments. Throughout our discussion, you've employed an argument that depends on premises you've not bothered to defend. (I've asked you for good reasons to believe one of those premises, and you still haven't provided any.) You insist that I need to give you some kind of theodicy. But why would I do something like that when you don't even have a defensible argument to begin with? The reason why you accuse me of not responding to your argument is that you've conflated refutation and rebuttal.

I've tried to explain the distinction several times now, but you reject it. Everybody who's taken the time to seriously understand logic and argumentation knows there's a big difference between (i) a claim that is shown to be false (ii) a claim for which there's no good reason to believe . Responses to arguments can involve either (i) or (ii). But you reject this idea, placing yourself at odds with nearly all logicians and philosophers. And you've said you don't even care what all philosophers think about this. You've also accused me of "hiding behind" something, whenever I use logic. It's pretty clear from all this that you simply don't understand logic and the way arguments work. I don't say this to offend you; it's just something that's become obvious from talking to you for a month or so. And frankly, it reflects poorly on you when you don't even know as much logic as those who you accuse of having a "mental disorder".

Take care,

Gavagai

Well actually we're winding back here on what I have already said. It's not outside human understanding to converse about an omnipotent God. Yes, to have a strong logical discussion about it is demanding, but no it's not impossible.

The ambiguity doesn't make it impossible, it simply makes for a little more thought. It's not so difficult to handle using some simple probability distribution. The ultimate truth of any logical or empirical claim is that it is true within it's own density function. This doesn't thwart logic or empiricism, it preserves them as consistent and absolute as ever, unto themselves. The probability that x can take any value is p(x), the probability that x is logical is a function of logic, that it is empirical is a function of empiricism, that it is consistent is a function of consistency. Same rules as always, just more carefully delineated into individual state spaces.

Hmmm. You don't honestly believe the average Christian is grasping the salvation plan of christian theology do you? I'm not a card carrying Christian and I don't apologise ludicrous ideas.

In all seriousness this particular concern about damnation really isn't an issue, the christians themselves say it's all about letting Jesus into your heart, I don't know how you figure that to be a tangible action but it seems to me if you're being genuinely peaceful, kind and respecting of truth (not the made up claptrap of bible fundies either) then you're doing okay at it, surely, and have no need of worrying about whether the rest is perfectly understood in the meantime.

 

 

Because theologically it is an equality. God is Alpha and Omega, first and last, Brahman is all and nothing, as above so below... etc etc.. theologically omnipotent clearly equals omnipotent and not omnipotent, if I was to add does not equal to it I'd be lying.

 

Ahh yeah, that's opinion I'm expressing there, Gator. But mind you e, i and pi are supra key constants in our universe representing all forms of mathematical understanding and the way they appear in that function is quite remarkable too as they form a new constant in and of themselves, 1 and 0 are the other two very important mathematical constants (the identity element and the null element). It's widely held that Euler's identity brings everything together as one beautiful function anyway. I add my opinion to it simply as a form of expressing my own theism.

 

LOL, you asked! Oh dear...

IMO they all (theologies) make the case, some clearer and more succinctly than others. I don't count that as an absolute proof of God, mind you, it could equally be proof that man innately and subconsciously understands his own condition better than we have realised. Truthfully I tend to favour that explanation, myself, but I also choose to believe that a God exists.

Yes I agree with you, it ultimately is rational to push experience to the edges. But it takes a more inclusive and openminded view to accept that. I wouldn't accuse anyone here of being closeminded, I think we all would easily agree on a little fun and wackiness being important to a sane person. I'm not sure, however, that we could all agree on percieving a possible God as a sane entity in those terms, for whom irrationality has the same function, even though it would follow from the most basic theology: "man made perfect in God's image" that he must be.

Everything is everything else somewhere at some time according to basic chemistry. The fundamental unit of biological matter, ie carbon, has probably been around through cats and cheese sandwiches a few times in the billions of earth years, so yes. Even in our own empirical terms the cat is not never a cheese sandwich.

OTOH If you open the box and find a cheese sandwich instead of a cat you're definitely not in Kansas anymore Dorothy, actually you're probably not Dorothy anymore, either, as the physical laws dictate. However, in multiverse theory this can only happen if your entire history and the cat's entire history dissappears, upon that happening your universe could conceivably cross the path of a parallel one and you would find yourself there instead.

 

Hmmm yes, I see you have a point. I was focusing quite intently on the one specific contradiction in answering you and thereby evading the question of miracles altogether. Quite successfully, I might add, Okay, so now you bring it up, I have to concede, miracles are apparently defined by their laying outside of the accessible scope. In answer, I can only appeal to the consequence, historically miracles and magics are explained upon the discovery of their natural cause, I would say it is worthwhile anyway to presume miracles can be understood upon discovery, and negative to presume that miracles are an example of what will always be outside our understanding. When we violate density functions, (another thing that quantum theory likes to boast it is capable of on small scales (ie tunnelling)) then I suppose we can say we have the extent of miracles that we know of so far covered... at least to a degree of our knowledge (if not application). OTOH if we've reached the end of our reasoning approach before the miraculous becomes natural knowledge to us, I'd recommend we throw them out as false, along with their baggage, that would be a pointy ended, fatal contradiction of keyturn theology, if 1. Humans=Gods in every aspect but mortality then 2. Miracles=Natural to humans. According to theology 1 is true therefore if 2 is not chuck 1 with it. 

Edit: just adding for a bit of fun, some Arthur C Clarke.  

Clarke's Third Law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

 

You know why that is, Gato, is because Christ aligns with every possible good in any ideology, he's ludicrously infallible that way. If there's a good psychologically healthy ideology you're on to, without a doubt you will find evidence of Jesus promoting it in his day, everybody does and hence things get reigned in with the words attributed to him simply because it's obvious he was a character who knew what he was on about, however you percieve the origin of his story, historical or mythological.

Early Pantheism came directly from the ancient religions, especially the Kabbalah and Upanishads. Spinoza was seen by a few others to have been appealing relativistically to the enlightenment by deliberating towards pure materialism in spite of himself and the theology he was drawing from. There is a pantheistic approach that is more spinozian than even Spinoza was which isn't recognising of it's ancient religious roots, you can probably count me as separate from that movement, but still along the lines of Pantheism anyhow. I don't distinguish Panentheism and Pantheism personally as I'm not strictly dualist in any sense and don't have a need to draw absolute lines about God for the sake of a philosophical statement. The All God is a good enough description of the One in all God for me, and I have a foot in each side there.

 

I can relate to that much quite well, you could be describing my beliefs there. Thanks for the warm fuzzies too, If nothing else a good battering out of the truth has to be the way to go IMO, God or no God.

Good point there Gato, if we didn't exempt it we'd get a transcendent sum of things not being what they're not being winding off into infinity. So I just concede basically what such an equation could be saying about a possibly infinite potential of nothing or room for being, and infinite potential in everything that occupies it. It throws all sorts of questions at our own being right there and then which can only briefly be asked without sending yourself thoroughly mad. I guess you could say I evade it because it's Alice in Wonderland stuff; when we're looking for one positive ontology it's not wise to cast doubt on the notion of ontic itself.

Clarke's Second Law:

"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

 [emphasis mine..]

 

There is mathematical beauty and there is beautiful mathematics, eulers identity certainly fits the latter most of all, because it doesn't rely on perfect formulation outside of nature to exist. It rests entirely on the most natural reality IMO; internal consistency (e), angles (pi), orientation (i), identity (1) and null (0) but thats only he beginning of my mathematical teleology and far from the end.

 

LOL, not sure I should answer that... you'd be surprised at some of my own stuff n nonsense, then.

 

Those are good questions. The plain and simple statement in Judeo-Christian Theology is that humanity was in God's image with the notable exceptions of a/ knowledge of Good and Evil and b/ life age-enduring. In the short version one of these we have embarked into and the other is hidden from us for some meantime good cause, but I would suppose that, if anything at all, we would actually be all characteristics and none at the same time in the Alice in Wonderland sense over the bigger picture, it's probably not best to think about that too long unless you're superkeen for coining a new breakthrough -ism (or a mental illness). In that way I think the Judeo-Christian texts have a reductionist beauty to them stating basically, somewhere between infinity a and infinity b, you are here between these two points. My opinion is that there's little else to read into the whole fall business than that essentially.

 

 

Well, there is an essential need to account for all possible states fundamentally, it crops up on many levels of science these days that what is is very very dependent on what it isn't, it's become difficult to explain a coherent universe without such a notion anymore, basically we might have gotten a little too smart for our own good, but that's where we are at.

Without a grand unified theory we are slightly stuck with the notion that everything plays out all the time, for now, but most are expecting that figure to return to finite and predictable eventually upon breakthrough discovery.

As I said to Tilberian, all we can say is that more is now concievable and go back to looking at existence. God in that case, is rather academic, it all points in the same direction regardless. I never say that it's necessarily theological, but I do say that if you're looking for God, Theology points to the same arena.

 Clarke wrote a first law too....

Clarke's First Law:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

 

 

  I like his 3rd Law!  But of course, this is only true temporarily.  Sure, a true miracle (by definition- no No True Scotsman Fallacy) is one that violates the viable limits of the universe, or it is not a miracle.  I think it would have been something if God (or whoever) put a couple of chapters of advanced mathematics instead of genealogies (also used as divine support), with the footnote "not to alter them, they will prove God's magnificence someday."  That would be a perpetual miracle that many more people could take part in, not the miraculous claims that were ubiquitous in the day (I don't have to list the mountains of supposed miracles claimed- Richard Carrier once mentioned a whole town in which the dead fish came back to life!).  Seriously, what is the more reasonable answer: miracles or mythology?  Tilberian noted above some of the miracles that no natural fiddling will ever actualize, except maybe in virtual reality (this includes the mind).  Yes, it seems we are on the road to godhood with our increasing capacity to create "miracles."  But again, there are always limitations- even if we could replicate fish and bread like on Star Trek, it wouldn't be the same as turning a few fish and loaves into hundreds/thousands by putting them in a basket.  Laws were violated.

That's debatable, especially when considering the consequences psychologically: first, there are people who undeniably use Jesus as a prop for self-righteousness, and history has not been significantly (as it should be) on the side of the people who allow this disposition into their minds.  There should be a radical distinction of consequential nobility in history and there is none- quite the opposite in many cases.  Also, there are people who suffer the psychological and physical consequences of hyper-guilt and the fear of God- walking on eggshells every minute (I know- I was there), so as to not offend a perfect being.  Rarely, if ever, is this hyper-guilt considered a mental disorder (to come full circle) in Christian circles.  It is often revered.  I was positively suicidal when I was a Christian, because I wanted to be with God so badly.  I even asked my pastors if it was possible to do it and not go to hell.  You know what they said?  Some said yes and others said no (Calvary Chapel, CA).  Whether or not I had a physiological condition, the religious reverence for, and the imposition of, a "not good enough" mentality had residual damage on me that took years to slough off.  I think that's one thing that many ex-Christians really empathize about.

Yeah, one problem with panentheism, when incorporated with Christian theology, is that if God is constantly tinkering with the universe (as some theistic ID people contend), and is not separate from it, how is it that the world is "broken" by the Fall.  How can God have anything to do with ontologically soiled, sinful, creation if He can't have anything to do with sinful humans?  If, when He created it, He saw that it was "good" (and many Christians will say this means ontologically good), then every physical thing in nature supposedly ruined by free will (which was/is not necessarily ontologically good, but neutral, and so was the only necessary X-factor in an otherwise perfectly "good" place), such as the plethora of "broken world" things creationists point to as consequences from the Fall, should be untouchable too.  It would seem that along the lines of Christian panentheism, God could not interact with the sinful universe until after the Great Sacrifice, but the opposite seems to be the case as evidenced by His overt interaction with the world in the bible and His lack of obvious interaction afterwards.  I guess one could say I am a naturalistic pantheist, but I prefer more the more practical label of secular humanist.

I like the 2nd Law too, but it is incomplete.  It doesn't address any need to come back!!  Out of orbit.  Yes, Alice in Wonderland, the fairy realm, Dorothy in Oz.  Coming back to what we can consistently observe seems crucial to me.

hmmm... well if we are also all characteristics, but some were hidden while others actualized, what was the point of the second tree, the tree of life, the one we were never allowed to taste?  Did God change His mind?  Was He saving that for later?  Maybe if they ate from that tree, they would have known enough not to eat from the other tree!  HAHA... it's all pretty convoluted to me.  I prefer the reductionist beauty of the scientific method. 

Seems to me like Orthodox Christian theology is shrinking, while other theologies are more durable.  To allow too much modification is innately deleterious to orthodox religion.  If there is going to be some future convergence of the world's major religions into only the irrefutable notions that consistently lie at the limits of our understanding, why give them any more credence than sociological data in the search for happiness.

HAHA- now this one is ambiguous at best.  The distinguished scientist, if he is truly distinguished, will usually only say something is possible if it falls within certain limitations that he is aware of, so those things he thinks are possible would be notably fewer than the common person.  The need to qualify this with "distinguished scientist" hides a conflation with "regular folks."  Those were fun though, and I liked how you counted down through your post.

Exactly, gatogreensleeves.

Gavagai, I asked you to explain the problem of unnecessary animal suffering. I can imagine no "greater good" that could possibly require this of an omni-potent and omni-benevolent God. You have asked me to give you a reason to think this is a problem since such a situation is conceivable yet you have failed to establish how it is conceivable. A reason to believe this may be a problem is implicit in the question itself.

I can understand why you don't want to have to come up with a theodicy. But as long as you continue to avoid actual dialogue, I'm done.

Response: please provide some good reasons -- beyond what you personally have trouble "imagining" (as an atheist) --  to believe that there is suffering such that we know there can't possibly be any reason why an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, infinitely wise and omniscient being would permit that suffering.  Scott, you can't demand that a rational person explain something x when you haven't offered a good reason for thinking x exists in the first place. 

 The only support you've offered is that it seems to you (qua atheist) that suffering must be gratuitous. But why should others believe such a thing? You won't say. So you've provided a pretty flimsy basis for an argument that purports to be a serious evidential challenge to theism. You can't rightly claim I'm irrational merely because you don't have the same modal intuitions as I do.

 

I've been giving you responses and engaging in actual dialogue the whole time. Please support the presuppositions in your questions. As long as you continue to avoid doing this, I'm done.

Gavagai, what possible reason could I give that you would accept? You can put up this sort of wall to any dialogue. I can assert that my name is Scott and you can say, "Yes, you believe that but please provide a good reason that I should believe that." Then I could say, "Well, it is on my birth certificate, my driver's license and my passport, and all of my friends and family call me Scott." Then you could say, "What good reason can you give that i should believe all of that?"

Unless you can demonstrate why my statement is illogical, you should address my question. Why have we had a dozen exchanges consisting of nothing other than you asserting that you don't see any reason to address my perfectly reasonable question?

So tell me, what do you think is wrong with my question? Why are you so strongly avoiding actually answering the question? How about just indulging me and taking a shot at it? Yes, it might expose you to criticism but at least we would make some forward progress.

Gato,

Please go back and read the early pages of this discussion. My belief in God doesn't mean "anything goes".

Cheers,

Gavagai

Well, to be perfectly honest, I have no real objection if you do. It is my opinion that all religious inquiry can be afforded respect and favour inasmuch as this, bare minimum, in any construct that is, basically, humanist. 

 The deleterious factors of Orthodoxy are nothing new, orthodoxy is at it's best when it is a relatively small predominantly preservationist (as opposed to conservative) interest ... I might cop some flack from Christians for that but it is my opinion nonetheless. It has it's function, but that function is naturally limited by it's own faults and to me, that is a good thing. Theology is a wealth of philosophical and mystical human thought reaching through centuries of time, it cannot be replaced, really, it is what it is and God, regardless of how you see the meaning of that word, cannot be removed from his place in our world of intellectual discovery. It's not in any way irrational, to me, to concieve of God in human thought as an immovable truth, but I won't tell you how to frame it in your personal ideology.

All told, I have no problem with seeing theology as sociological data, our collective pursuit of happiness and goodness; I wouldn't add any reductionist aphorisms to that description, personally, this is millennias of thought and millions of sincere inquiring minds we are talking about, it's not nearly as mere as we could possibly paint it, but I'm quite in agreement principally.  

There was something else I was thinking, but I think it was  related to your other post so I'll have another look before posting.

 No, Scottmax. As I just got done saying, nearly all parties agree that there are other ways of responding to the evidential argument from evil besides inventing theodicies.  Even leading atheists who advance the argument agree (e.g. Rowe, Gale, Draper, et al.) They don't think the problem doesn't exist. But apparently you know their minds better than they themselves do.

Your question has been addressed head-on. I pointed out the assumption that your question relies upon and I asked you to defend that assumption. You failed to do so. So why would I accept a controversial assumption of yours for which no defense is forthcoming? That would be ridiculous.

You haven't yet provided good reasons why you're so confident in your knowledge that such suffering is, of necessity, totally gratuitous.  Merely repeating a claim over and over will not add plausibility to your position.

I will feel free to continue pointing out the fact that you haven't developed even the faintest facility with elementary logic.  I will feel free to continue pointing out the fact that you can't make basic distinctions about the nature of logical argumentation. And I will feel free to continue pointing out the fact that you're unable to understand, and thus unwilling to grant, extremely plausible assumptions that all parties of the debate about the evidential argument from evil have accepted. I don't "insult" you because of these facts. (Far from it, I would encourage you to start studying the recent literature so you can correct your mistakes in this thread, and we can continue our exchange.)  But in light of these facts, it is difficult to take seriously your claim that you've studied the problem of evil for so long and that you know what you're talking about. And it's unfortunate that the people who you stare down your nose at and accuse of having "mental disorders" are actually miles ahead of you when it comes to logic and developing the habits of a rational, reflective thought-life. 

Since Scottmax plainly refuses to defend his assumptions from one post to the next -- thereby refusing to actually engage in rational discussion with me -- I'm left with little choice but to tentatively end my correspondence with him.  Scottmax, I was enjoying our discussion at first, and it's too bad that we've reached this impasse. I would encourage you to begin studying the relevant literature, so that we might get the chance to revisit these issues in the future. Just let me know when you're prepared to start arguing logically for the propositions you assert, rather than expecting others to believe things merely on your say-so.

In the meantime, I'd be delighted to have civil discussions with others (who don't mind employing rational argumentation when necessary). Gatogreen, I haven't had the chance to read most of your posts in this thread, but if you'd like to discuss an issue with me, I'd be happy to. Let me know which post you'd like me to respond to.

Take care,

Gavagai

The materialists believe life is the way we see it, that everything is made up of atoms and molecules, as a result, a belief in something that cannot be seen, touched, smelled or placed under a microscopre is irrational.

Hi Gavagai, I would love to continue in the vein of your conversation with Scottmax, if possible.  However, I am not concerned with labeling anyone “irrational” (I’m here to learn), so that should not be an element in our discussion and I question whether or not our discussion should continue in this thread.  Nor am I an experienced formal debater, but I can try to organize at least some of my concerns in the way you prefer. 

Divine attributes: You’ve said to me that, “belief in God doesn't mean "anything goes."”  Looking over these posts, I observed Scottmax’s attempt to clarify your definition of omnipotence, by proposing, “God has the power to create any desired system of reality that maintains an internal consistency”.  It was apparent to me that he was trying to set up a definition with observable consistency. You seemed reluctant to accept it unless it contained “metaphysical possibilities,” which is still a huge, ambiguous subset.  So I would ask, are miracles beyond your conception of “broadly logical possibilities,” or does God only perform miracles that are consistent with what is possible in this universe without post- creation divine intervention?  What makes a miracle a miracle?  Is the consequential glory for God based on a show of His ability to actually supersede previously established universal order or is it a show of technical advancement in a world that already allows for it?    

You explicated your definition of omnipotent (“the ability to do anything within broadly logical possibility”) with “God can't e.g. create round squares or married bachelors. These would be metaphysically impossible states of affairs.”  Although I know what you are trying to say and will concede that there are logically impossible metaphysical states of affairs, I find it interesting that we can often tickle those kinds of examples until we have: bachelors who are married to their work or we have a tube with the right dimensions to be a circle from the front and a square from the side (seen on a 2D plane).  So sometimes, a derived metaphorical possibility seems plausible in this world (actually I don't know what you would call the tube example)... What are the implications?  Probably nothing significant- just some word fun I noticed. I don't think it refutes Hume's argument against the ontological argument, since the implied definitions of the words "bachelor" and/or "married" must change in order to facilitate the metaphor.  It's fun to play with these things anyway... Back on track, you said in earlier posts, “Oftentimes disagreement over what's metaphysically possible and what's not resolves into a clash of modal intuitions”…  And later, “When it comes to modal epistemology, I think that conceivability is a firm (but fallible) guide.”  (Don’t let me take you out of context.  If these do not apply here, let me know.)  So, in order to clarify “broadly logical possibilities” further- what is firm and what is fallible, will you please make a list of all of the things you know of thus far that God can’t do (e.g. commit immoral acts, create metaphysically impossible states of affairs, etc.)?   

Now, onto the PoE concerning superfluous animal suffering…  Let’s start a new thread for this here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/9261