Re: The logic of atheism
- From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:55:47 -0700
prabbit1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> prabbit1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Ben Goren wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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. "
>>
>> Even if I were to grant you your distinction...it's yet another
>> example of something impossible for the omnipotent being.
>>
>> Think it through: if it's impossible for a human being to
>> run a one-minute marathon, then it's also impossible for a
>> supposedly-omnipotent being to create a human being that
>> could run a one-minute marathon. You might be able to create
>> something that resembles a human that could do the trick, but
>> it wouldn't be human.
>
> Then what you're saying is that it's logically impossible for a
> god to create a human that runs a minute-marathon but yet
> expecting a god to be able to do the illogical is, well,
> illogical.
Erm...yeah. That's the point. Theists illogically expect their
gods to be able to do the illogical.
> Logic doesn't tell us what we can do, it describes what can be
> done (same for the natural laws describing what can be done
> with-in this universe.) So if something can logically be done,
> then an omnipotent god would be able to do it, even if it's
> against the laws of nature.
>
> Example: the laws of nature say that a human can't accelerate
> at 1,000,000,000g and live without something changing the
> laws. How-ever, logic doesn't really address that. Logic would
> say something like "if a person accelerated at 1,000,000,000g
> and lived, then it's possible to do so. John just did so (with
> the help of some god's supernatural powers.) Thus it's possible
> to do so."
In such a case, the laws of nature /wouldn't/ say that a human
can't accelerate at a billion gravities and survive. The laws of
nature would clearly permit such a thing, because John just
accelerated at a billion gravities, he's human, and he survived
just fine.
Now, we may well not understand how such a thing could possibly
happen, but we know that it did. (In engineering, that's often
half the battle, by the way.) If we could ever figure out how it
happened, and if we could get our hands on the necessary
resources, we'd be able to accelerate anybody and everybody at a
billion gravities on a whim, and the whole universe would be
colonized by humans in short order.
What I'm saying is that logic itself precludes certain things from
ever happening. Like, for example, somebody drawing on a flat
piece of paper a (representation of a) straight line segment such
that every point on that segment is equidistant from some other
point on the page. We can know with absolute certainty that no
amount of supernaturality could permit anybody from completing
such a task. We can be pretty sure but perhaps not (yet)
absolutely certain that your billion-gees example is impossible,
but the proof isn't perfect. The proof in my example, however,
/is/ perfect.
Look at it this way: if somebody came up with some sort of a proof
dealing with billion-gee acceleration that's exactly as sound as
the sorts of things Euclid came up with about geometry, you
wouldn't have picked your example because it would have been
equally obvious that it's ludicrous. But, before Pythagoras, it
wasn't at all obvious that there was anything special about the
relationship of the lengths of the sides of a right triangle....
>> Now, another example. ``All but God can prove this sentence
>> true.'' It's possible for you and me to prove that the
>> sentence is true...but it's not possible for God to do
>> so. Thus, it's logically possible, period, to prove that the
>> sentence is true--just not for God to do so.
>
> Self-referential statements are nothing but logical tricks. But
> that does nothing to show that a god can't do anything
> physically possible.
Fine.
It's physically impossible for a god to physically write down on a
piece of paper a valid proof of the sentence.
It's physically impossible for a god to physically write down on a
piece of paper a representation of a circular square.
It's physically impossible for an omnipotent god to physically
create a real rock that's so heavy he's physically incapable of
lifting it.
It's physically impossible for a god to create a ``normal'' human
being who's capable of running an un-assisted one-minute marathon.
It's physically impossible for a god to create a hydrogen atom
with two protons in the nucleus.
Need I continue?
>> And, I'll warn you: any attempts to wiggle out of this one will
>> quickly land us back in the situation where my inability to run
>> a one-minute marathon doesn't count against my omnipotence.
>
> Again with the tricks. It's not physically possible for YOU to
> run a minute-marathon but it may be for some other entity. So
> there's nothing logically or physically impossible about a god
> doing it but there is something physically impossible about YOU
> doing it.
But it /is/ physically impossible for a god to make /me/ capable
of running a one-minute marathon /without/ altering me and / or
the laws of nature.
> I.e. if something can be done by any entity, an omnipotent god
> would be able to do it. But not all entities can do all things
> (I can't fly but a whale can't walk) and thus not all entities
> are "ALL-powerfull." But an omnipotent god should be able to
> fly, walk, swim, etc.
You bring up an interesting point. This omnipotent god is also
supposed to be omnipresent. Therefore, what sense does it make
to speak of a god that's everywhere taking a stroll in the
woods? It'd be like me trying to kyak through my own blood veins.
But here's something that you and I could do--though I have no
intention of doing so and I hope you don't either: commit
suicide. It's something far too many people do every year.
Tell me, how would an omnipotent being go about committing
suicide?
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The logic of atheism
- From: prabbit1
- Re: The logic of atheism
- References:
- Re: The logic of atheism
- From: prabbit1
- Re: The logic of atheism
- Prev by Date: Re: The logic of atheism
- Next by Date: Re: The logic of atheism
- Previous by thread: Re: The logic of atheism
- Next by thread: Re: The logic of atheism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
