Re: The logic of atheism

Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
jwarrend@xxxxxxx wrote:

> Ben Goren wrote:
>
>> There's a reason that I picked math and logic as my example
>> natural laws instead of physics (or chemistry or...). And the
>> reason is that, as you accurately describe, it's entirely
>> possible to posit that it's possible to violate the law of
>> gravity.
>
> Well, I thnk you at least seem to assent to my argument
> that the laws of physical nature are descriptive rather than
> prescriptive.

That certainly applies to most of what most people consider to be
natural laws. But...not all. Things like the inverse square law
derive purely from geometry, for example.

No, geometry describes and formulates that inverse square law.

> As for the laws of math or logic, I don't think those are what
> anyone has in mind when they are talking about supernatural
> abilities, so I think your use of them to be able to sustain
> the argument that a supernatural being can't exist sort of
> reinforces my point that your argument is fallacious -- you're
> redefining what "supernatural" means and then claiming that
> inability to perform a supernatural act under your definition
> equates to a fundamental impossibility of the supernatural.

Hey, it ain't /my/ problem that theists are too stupid to
understand that math and logic are part of the natural world, too.

Besides, I've yet to come across a physical impossibility that
couldn't trivially be reduced to a logical one. Take the fact that
it's impossible for me to run a one-minute marathon. A big part of
that impossibility is the fact that my body doesn't have available
to it sufficient energy in a suitable form to accelerate my mass
to the requisite velocity and sustain that velocity against the
various forces for a sufficient period of time. It is, in a very
real sense, an exercise in attempting to make 1 + 1 equal
something quite larger than 2.

> Saying that God can't make 1+1=3 is pretty much akin to claims
> like "God can't make a square circle" or "God can't make a rock
> heavier than He can lift".

Well, now you're bringing in a very specific deity who has
a very specific essential supernatural power: omnipotence. And
``omnipotence'' can /only/ mean ``able to do absolutely anything
and everything.''

If you come up with something that's impossible for an omnipotent
being to do, the first thing the omnipotent being should do is
``use his omnipotence'' to give himself the power to do the
impossible. If not, what's the point of omnipotence?

If you restrict ``omnipotence'' to only mean ``capable of anything
that is logically possible,'' then it quickly becomes apparent
that /I/ am omnipotent. Because, see? Everything that I'm not
capable of doing is logically impossible--as I explained above
with my example of the one-minute marathon--and therefore doesn't
count against omnipotence.

I don't agree with this part. It's logically possible for SOME entity to run
a 1-minute marathon. It's just not physically possible for a human to do it.
An omnipotent being would have to be able to do anything that it's logically
possible to do under any circumstances. Thus that being would have to be
able to accelerate at 1,000,000,000g and live, even though we couldn't do
so.

I.e. it's not just "do what's logically possible for that being" but "do
what's logically possible, period."

Also, restricting omnipotence raises another problem. Who or what
is it that binds the hands of the omnipotent? That is, who or what
created these logical laws that even the supposedly-omnipotent are
powerless against? Whatever the source, it's clearly /far/ more
powerful than this God dude.

If even logic is descriptive instead of proscriptive, then it wouldn't even
bind this "god." So first we have to decide which it is.

<snip more that I just don't want to bother with, since this was getting a
bit longer than I wanted. So not saying anything either way about the merits
of what I snipped.>

--
Mike

-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: About God
    ... omnipotent and were our creator. ... the christians, they are not an old man with a beard and they do not ... But the laws of physics cannot beGodas you define him to be. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • =?ISO-8859-9?Q?Ebcio=F0lu?=
    ... raises questions about what it means to do science, ... 'laws' governing his composition could be abstracted from the 'data'. ... technique to automate the identification of natural laws from ... the underlying physics. ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)
  • Re: About God
    ... omnipotent and were our creator. ... you have zero proof of any existence of yourgod. ... But the laws of physics cannot beGodas you define him to be. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: =?ISO-8859-9?Q?Ebcio=F0lu?=
    ... 'laws' governing his composition could be abstracted from the 'data'. ... to deduce underlying principles from a mass of observations. ... technique to automate the identification of natural laws from ... Perhaps the arena most in need of a tool such as this is not physics ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)
  • Re: About God
    ... omnipotent and were our creator. ... you have zero proof of any existence of your god. ... According to the anthropic principle the laws of physics have ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading