Omnipotence Paradox & Laws Of Logic | Thaddeus-MO | The Atheist Experience 948
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- The Atheist Experience 948 for December 13, 2015 with Matt Dillahunty and John Iacoletti.
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 1997 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
This is the only caller that I've seen on in a long time that feels like he's having an actual conversation with our hosts.
"It is like saying god is maximally purple"
John exposed the entirety of christian theology with that one sentence.
Life of Brian was much funnier the the Passion of the Christ.
What did the *Passion of Christ* ever do for us ? No aqueducts, no roads, no ..... !
Watching Life of Brian is my favorite Easter tradition.
From the gospel of Air Jordan: "Once swoosh, always swoosh!"
"Just dunk it." -Jordan
1:34 "Not that you need any approval from us.."
I just wanted to highlight this, as an example for what a respectful and humble human being Matt is. People who are being yelled at are generally giving very good reasons for a reaction like that.
To the topic at hand:
4:48 "[Laws of logic] are not something that exists. They are not things or entities."
This is true, if you do not operate under the framework of platonic forms. The Euthyphro dilemma makes sense inside of this framework in that it is a true dilemma. The Good has to have ontology to be above God and it does within Platonism. Since Platonism is very much one of the major sources for Christianity since the beginning up until the present day, within this framework "logic" is greater than God. So, this is indeed posing a problem.
Also, I don't see how theologians are consistent, when it comes to logic. Even though with Thomas Aquinas we get this ever and still present tradition of appealing to logic and rationality, they still accept the Trinity, which is to say A is not B, A is not C, B is not C, A is B, A is C and B is C at the same time (A=God, B=Holy Spirit, C=Jesus). This is an obvious violation of logic. So, as far as I'm concerned, I perceive theologians as having no problem with God violating logic, while they probably perceive themselves differently. At least this harmonizes the view, that God isn't subservient to anything like logic or goodness (anything really, if you exclude Gnostic apocrypha) and therefore, the Euthyphro dilemma is resolved perfectly, by violating logic, in that God created logic. Most theists have no issues with divine command theory anyway, so there is no dilemma for the believer.
It's funny, because it reveals the nature of post hoc rationalization within apologetics even more, now that we have theologians adjusting the omnis to maximally possible attributes, while simultaneously defending the Trinity. This is not a strawman, it's an observation of the mighty Bill Craig on the basis of the most charitable understanding I could handle. I'd appreciate corrections, in case I'm misunderstanding something.
Thank you for these excerpts. They help me to expand my understanding in the art of reasoning
"The art of reasoning?" Says the lost and clueless atheist fool that thinks star dust, moist rocks and mud puddles have the INTELLIGENCE, POWER, PURPOSE AND MEANS to create/design the human being and ALL the co-existent bodily systems (circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, pulmonic, digestive, skeletal, muscular, nervous, body (skin), etc., etc.) intertwined in symmetry and order in the human body :)
Sorry kid, but all your ideas are simply IMPOSSIBLE. Creatures are not the creator. NOTHING within nature: time/space/matter/energy can be the creator, because all of it is finite and had a beginning and thus an INFINITE beginner and there's only one of them ;)
ALL YOUR BELIEFS aren't RATIONAL or POSSIBLE. And guess what else? Whoever did create/design the human being and ALL the co-existent bodily systems (circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, pulmonic, digestive, skeletal, muscular, nervous, body (skin), etc., etc.) intertwined in symmetry and order in the human body is EXPONENTIALLY more intelligent, resourceful and powerful than the human being. I'll give you one guess who that is.
@@wrencestondwanson3437 if you’re so rational and logical why do you ignore the flaws in your arguments? Oh right, because you’ve already demonstrated you don’t know the first thing about logic. But you are great at empty rhetoric and burying your head in the sand.
@@wrencestondwanson3437 you keep getting straw all over yourself, I notice
@@wrencestondwanson3437 Nothing you wrote was remotely close to a logical, coherent "argument." It was all fallacious and you stole the "creature" bit from Magical Chemical Daddy. That's called plagiarism, unless you are admitting to being the same person using multiple accounts. Come up with some new original material with fewer flaws next time
@@wrencestondwanson3437 So, you’re a MCD fanboy now I see, using his “creature” bit.
I saw The Passion of the Christ in the theater when it came out. I thought it was okay but I had a hilarious experience when I saw it. At the scene where the Roman soldiers are whipping Jesus and it is a pretty graphic scene, this woman stood up in the middle of the theater and yelled, "Stop beating my Lord!" I lost it. I was laughing so hard. My friends that I went and saw it with were a little annoyed by the fact that I was laughing at that. I didn't understand why they weren't laughing. First, did she really think they would stop because she asked them to and second, how did she not know that was coming?! It is like going to see Titanic and getting upset when the ship sinks. What did you think was going to happen?! To this day I don't remember a lot about the movie but I definitely remember that happening. The movie is pretty forgettable.
You’re too ignorant to understand the deeper teachings of the Bible: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” - 1 Cor 1:18. Since you don't understand the Bible, your emotions are unfounded and your reasoning irrelevant.
@@wrencestondwanson3437 - Except that I have read the Bible many times and used to teach it. It is a book and not a particularly good one at that. Have you read it cover to cover once? I have also studied the Bible and other religious texts for over 25 years. Are you still a member of the same church your parents introduced you to or have you actually studied any other faiths/denominations? You should try and keep your projections to yourself, child.
@@nates9029 That's good, that you have a background in knowledge of God. It's unfortunate that you have stopped trusting God & started trusting the flesh. I take it that you went to a dead church and your spirit just wasn't getting fed OR a tragedy happened in your life & you blame God for it.
"Blessed in he that's not offended in me" - Matthew 11:6
”And Jesus told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone.” - Mark 16:15
”And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.” - Luke 14:23
@@wrencestondwanson3437 - Wow, you are full of ignorant assumptions. No, no tragedy happened where I blamed your imaginary sky Daddy. I don't believe your imaginary sky Daddy exists. Do you blame leprechauns when something bad happens in your life?
I left my church and started studying other denominations and other faiths to see if it was just the religion I grew up in. I found them all lacking in logic and reason. I see you didn't actually answer any of the questions I asked you which is typical. You quoting Scriptures to me is laughable. Do you want me to start quoting Shakespeare or Harry Potter to you?
@@wrencestondwanson3437 - By the way, I don't find it unfortunate at all. I prefer living my life based on logic and reason than believing in fairy tales. You should try it sometime.
Remember,
Yahweh couldn’t handle iron chariots (Judges 1:19).
Then again, and for heavenly trivia games, he knows how many hairs you have (Luke 12:7).
Hey Matt I want to let you know how grateful I am for your channel I'm pretty much a life long atheist and recently discovered your channel it's good to be able to converse with like minded people
Matt admits that atheism has ZERO ANSWERS. The religious cult of atheism is INFAMOUS the world over for having ZERO ANSWERS. It's just a sect of the lost & clueless.
@@wrencestondwanson3437 you have zero answers to the flaws in your arguments. You’re lost and clueless and you know it.
@@wrencestondwanson3437 you, on the other hand, have many answers. How unfortunate that most of them are wrong. It is as if I was a lost traveller and, coming across two bystanders, asked them the way to my destination. Neither knew the way. One simply said, "I'm sorry, I don't know. " But the other, not wishing to appear ignorant, made up a whole set of directions that, as it turns out, could hardly have been more inaccurate and led me astray for several hours. Which bystander was the more helpful?
@@wrencestondwanson3437
"Matt admits that atheism has ZERO ANSWERS. "
Well, he's right....
the reason is has ZERO answers is because it's essentially asking a question about proving a god...
WTF do you think it should supply answers?
Speaking of which when I have posted the same question to you before and you RUN AWAY which means you offered ZERO ANSWERS!
@@wrencestondwanson3437 You have demonstrably wrong answers. I'd rather admit to not knowing something than pretend to know something that I'm clearly wrong about. That's what theists like you are known for
The Passion was a snuff film
Minor nitpick: I disagree that the Paradox of the Stone only addresses 'naive' views of Omnipotence. I'd ather state that Omnipotence _is_ a naive view, period.
Case in point, the Paradox of the Stone _does not_ feature abilities that are logically impossible, nor does it combine abilities that are inherently logically impossible either. Any human can create a stone so heavy that human cannot lift it on their own. It's not just logically possible, it's _obviously true._
The whole point of the Paradox is to demonstrate that Omnipotence makes this otherwise basic task _logically impossible._ Omnipotence has _always_ been understood as the potential of actualizing _every_ logically possible state of affairs. However, the point here is that there are potentials that are *exclusive,* such that actualizing one renders the other impossible.
Therefore, it is trivial to demonstrate, using such examples as the Paradox of the Stone, that Omnipotence _is_ logically impossible, simply because of the existence of exclusionary potentials, such that actualizing one immediately precludes the existence of the potential to actualize the other. Omnipotence is inherently self-contradictory, no matter the amount of hermeneutic contortions and theological spin.
PS: if you think I've overlooked something that undermines my reasoning, feel free to explain how this line of thinking does not lead to this conclusion I've stated in the beginning.
If you think there is a way to avoid the Omnipotence Paradox, feel free to elaborate too.
Are you atheist
The violence in “The Passion of the Christ” was even uncomfortable for me and not much in movies bothers me. I realize movies are not real. Sadly, adults often can't tell reality from illusion.
It's because I read that actor suffered for real on scene.
@@samuelcalderwood1379 lol what?
@@samuelcalderwood1379 Yeah I don't believe that horse shit
@@samuelcalderwood1379 it's not
@@samuelcalderwood1379 "paid the price for your sins and mine"- to whom did he pay this price?
My issue with so called Christ suffering is that real people actually deal with horrible situations all the time.
Yes! Countless people have suffered as much and more in total obscurity.
And it doesn’t matter if they are suffering to help others and making true sacrifices. Not just giving up their weekend and then going to the best place ever. Not much of a sacrifice at all really.
I contrast it to the Buddist monk Thích Quảng Đức who dowsed himself with gasoline and burned himself to death. For that we have photografic proof, and that guy didn't cheat and stayed *dead* .
Yes. And if Jesus sacrificed himself for us, why isn't he in Hell instead of us?
@@goranmilic442 that is one I’ve always wondered myself. If he took on everyone that ever was or will be sins then he should be burning in the deepest depth of hell for all eternity. Because his father loved him.
Matt is bomb
god IS all Powerful - Matthew 19:26, Jeremiah 32:27
god is NOT all Powerful - Judges 1:19, Mark 6:5(he could not do any miracles there) not “he chose/decided not to”, but “He could NOT do”.
It's supposed to be the "Perfect" word of god......yet filled with Contradictions, Errors, AND EVIL done by and commanded by that 'god'!!! If only people would actually READ those books. But.......I guess that's asking too much?
Well, to be fair, when we say "hey, anything's possible", we don't generally mean that literally. And in the Matthew text, this is in response to people saying, "if all you are saying is true, how can anyone be saved", and his response is, "God makes it possible." He's not really making a philosophical claim about divine omnipotence. Basically, my view is that from the writers' perspective, God had powers and knowledge beyond human comprehension, so that's what they were talking about. BUT the idea of the God of the Bible actually knowing everything and being able to do absolutely anything is not consistent with the story and theology of the Bible.
There's also the omniscience/free will paradox. This lays the problem out fairly well:
1. A person with free will can freely choose between A and B.
2. God is omniscient (all-knowing)
3. God knows I will choose A.
4. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.
5. From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B.
6. From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.
I completely agree. That is why the idea of a judgmental God who will punish people makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's like putting an explosive device in the cookie jar because you know your kids are going to open the jar. That's why the idea of a Christian God is much closer to that of a demon. It's like Pascal's wager flipped on its head. What if these people are actually worshipping a demon and when they die they have to go in and live with it for all eternity? That's a question I proposed to Christians often when they bring up Pascal's wager.
Your error is assuming is omniscience is deterministic - that knowledge forces outcomes- you never proved that
@@walnutoil100 If God knew in advance that designing people in a certain way would lead to certain outcomes, and could have chosen differently such that other outcomes could have occurred, and freely chose the designs that lead to the actual outcomes, whose choice was it that led to the actual outcomes?
@@walnutoil100 "your error is in assuming that omniscience is deterministic "- your evidence is?
@@walnutoil100 "That knowledge forces outcomes"- Prove that that is what is being claimed
What did god think when he first discovered he wasn't all powerful because he couldn't create a rock he couldn’t lift?
If he's omniscient he probably knew from the beginning.
You could always ask a TruChristian. They're the experts at reading the mind of transcendent superintelligence.
I suppose that if God could break the laws of logic, then God could both be able and unable to lift the rock in question, whatever that would actually mean in practice.
@@amtlpaul If a god could waive the logical absolutes, they could be god, not-god, and all gods simultaneously. They could invent the universe without existing. They could make an unliftable rock, be able to lift it anyway, and never actually do it because it's not in their nature or free will or somesuch arblegarble.
In short, with such a god, nothing would have to make sense ever again. So it really surprises me that apologists and similar BS artists have turned their backs on the concept, instead of embracing it as a core tenet.
@@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT yep! Maybe all the religions are right after all! And so are we...
God created everything, except thinking and logic.
Modern theologians understand god better because they've had more time to play with the character.
I love it.
See my comments above :)
The Bible does say, with God ALL things are possible. That sounds like an omnipotent concept.
and yet they fail to produce anything as if there is no real god at all. strangely.
@@stultusvenator3233 yea very true 👍
@@marciomaia4020 Define 'all things'. That is the problem. He created matter for the planets out of nothing, so in real terms, any **physical** action is indeed within his grasp. A simple re-wording as "all actions are possible" makes it much harder to argue against.
@@nowandrew4442 sure but you're just redefining "all things " to fit your argument. Very dishonest.
@@marciomaia4020 utter nonsense. I'm defining it so that it makes sense to discuss it. There's no point debating anything if you don't agree on the context of the discussion.
Remember that whatever words are used in the English-language version are just translations from a different text. So you can't possibly insist on a direct literal fixation on the meanings of the English words. *That's* the dishonesty.
Thaddaeus is an awesome name
Isn't the inability to violate logic a violation of magic since magic contradicts god and therefore a maximally powerful god would be a contradiction? Trying to define god into existence must give theists a headache.
Minute 10:00 - note that the "ancient greek and roman gods" never told people how to behave. They were only interested in propitiations, sacrifices, and pitting their human champions against one another. The Iliad is particularly instructive on this point.
I recognize his voice, that’s King Xerxes on UA-cam.
Remember who made that movie. Nasty Mel.
But even IF a god is maximally powerful, which is it: Can he create something too heavy to lift, or is he able to lift it? Which one can the god do? If the god can only do one, WHICH one?
If you put aside the fact that this lifting question is no demonstration of good thinking skills - then it is the second alternative only.
@ayy lmao I already answered twice - but it don't show up for me. So I try again:
This argument ( or paradox of the stone as it is sometimes called ) smells. No question about it. The hosts should know this and hence don't bring it up.
I'd even call it bs. And I don't want to debate this - just wanted to point it out for those who don't know or don't have a fine sense of smell.
Maybe my other answers were deleted because I included links for more info on the subject. So, no links. Just google for omnipotence paradox, read
Wikipedia, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and List of paradoxes on Wikipedia to learn and practice how to deal with such arguments.
The real paradox of omnipotence paradox is how the question is set, because it asks whether a being infinite and eternal by nature can create a finite, material object, which it can't lift? Well obviously infinite being can not create a finite object it couldn't lift. This however does not disprove God's omnipotence, because it is caused by what God ultimately is and what the stone ultimately is.
So basically in order to prove omnipotence paradox either God would have to become finite, in which case God truly wouldn't be omnipotent or God should create infinite stone, which also mean God would have to create infinite world as infinite object can not exist in a finite world. So actually the omnipotence paradox in itself is a paradox as is has made certain presumptions and failed to see hidden flaws in its logic
What's strange is how religion has to evolve to keep up with our evolution. No god these days can say he is the same yesterday, today, and forever. or he looks like a total dosh. Evolution is going to destroy all gods one day.
My 11 year old son and I both are huge fans of Matt.
You prolly huger than him.
Much respect for the caller. Putting up with going to church just to make his sick mom happy. That's one of the only times I approve of someone going to church.
How far can God throw the biggest rock that he can lift. And how far can God roll the biggest rock he can't lift????
Can God make a weight so heavy he can't lift it? The answer has to be yes or he's not all powerful. Just say yes. In magical thinking land all things are possible.
regardless how does any of this prove his existence?
Matt ur a good man inside..u would go to church with ur mother n keep mouth shut to make her happy at her end...proof good ppl exist.
Actually we can't know if God (should he exist) could violate any such laws - there's too much we don't know to be sure.
He/she/it could even be able to redefine, add or remove any laws of nature. We don't have a clue.
I don't believe in God by the way.
I heard yaweh made an enchilada too big to actually eat . He is not all powerful , at least not in regards to eating food
This caller sounds very similar to King Xerxes.
5:30 he walks in on himself talking to Matt.
The thing about the omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc. of God is that none of them are ever explicitly stated in scripture. There are verses that lend strength to those ideas, but it's never stated in anything approaching those terms. They were adopted by the early church in an attempt to explain God to Greek minds. Those absolute terms were thrown around in Greek philosophies all the time, so they made kind of a short hand way for the early church to explain their understanding of God in terms most of the world at that time would have understood. That said, it makes it all the more pointless for Christians to argue for God's "Omni-ness" when the scripture itself doesn't outright declare it to be part of God's nature.
The mere facts that taxes, tithing, and ownership of other ‘sons and daughters of god’ with instructions on beating them is sufficient to know where the thinking behind the emphasis of this book and it’s motives come from. Whoever was in any form of control over fellow man at that time, all went to dinner and colluded and conspired in the best fairy tale ever written - which also explains why it’s so vague and so self-contradictory (or self-debunking).
It’s also why theologians now need to really think of much smarter ways to explain that which is clearly non-sensical, because ultimately if Christians’ were wholly honest, would they truly want this heavenly loving father? He sounds more like the outcast uncle nobody talks about due to his passion for children - it’s clever though in the sense it’s so huge and covers just about everything they could think of at the time it was conceived, from every perceivable angle, that it’s almost entirely written in metaphors, synonyms, riddles and ‘the moral of the story is…..’ open to interpretation and debate due to its own ambiguity, that it would take an eternity to write a version that actually made sense to everyone. If there were this infallible deity then I’m pretty sure his words would be explicitly clear, with absolutely no room for debate or argument, and there’d be no ambiguity whatsoever - which is why it’s so clearly from the minds of men for the purposes of control. Least that’s what I think, I am only 8 though.
Great work Matt - I admire your tenacity and endurance for this, and your intolerance for dishonesty, and idiots. Thanks to you I became a Jehovah’s Witness - yeah right haha - I’ve never believed in any supernatural realm, or it’s sociopathic, narcissistic, arrogant, capricious, warmongering, egotistical, psychotic, buffoon of an overlord dictator with such ambivalent views and feelings towards all of his supposed children, whom he loves so much and equally.
So many times on reading the bible (took over 20 years) I found myself thinking ‘oh how convenient….’ that had I the room, I’d have had it tattooed onto my schlong.
The Passion of the Christ is a vile piece of work - and, yes, I have sat through it in its entirety. Didn't they make a less gory cut of it available? Pretty sure there was something like that on Disc 2 of the DVD I've got, although viewing the main film left me with no desire to explore the set any further. As an atheist, if I've got to watch any version of the Jesus story in film form then it's Jesus Christ Superstar, every time. At least that telling has some clever lyrics and banging riffs. Last Temptation was interesting - and has a superb soundtrack in its own right - but for re-watchability JCS gets my vote.
The Life Of Brian is kind of christ-adjacent, but it would get my vote.
And books… I highly recommend “Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal”, by Christopher Moore
My ex wife bought The Passion of Christ DVD. I refused to lower myself into watching it. I know the bullshit mythical story already. I don't really want to watch torture porn.
How is "God is bound by the laws of logic" square with trinitarian theology?
WE'RE GOIN'TO NIKE HEAVEN
is it not illogical to use magic to create the universe?
He makes Really Big Rock.
He tries to lift it.
If issues, he gets Yoda to help.
P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.
But, but muh free will!!!!111!!!!
Wrong. God created righteousness & evil is simply the lack of righteousness by ones own God-given free will.
@@wrencestondwanson3437 why do you ignore all of the fallacies in your arguments? Your position is incredibly weak if you have to bury your head in the sand to hold onto it.
@@wrencestondwanson3437 So free will is essentially evil? Explain why God thought that it was a good idea, then?
@@archangel_metatron why evil was created in the first place is the question
Nike Heaven sounds like hell to me. It would be filled with a bunch of people obsessed with shoes and people way better at sports than I am😂
Man everyone that calls in is an atheist nowadays where is my entertainment🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
The only good thing from The Passion of Christ is the sequel The Passion of Christ 2: Crucify This
If god cannot both create a rock that nobody can lift, and at the same time be able to lift all rocks, then which of these two can he do (if any)? And how do we know that that is what he can do?
The idea of a "maximally powerful" god IS problematic, because you will have to define the criterion on which he scores maximally. What do you derive that from? What optimal in one context may not be in another.
He is not constrained by physical laws, and any rock he creates is a physical object. He cannot create a physical object that is immune to physical law immunity, is the real point. That is not a physical constraint; that is itself a logical impossibility. Or, rather, involves non-sensical attribution of conceptual-only properties.
It is therefore not that he cannot perform a physical task. It is that the question is not well-understood by the asker. ;)
Really,, it makes no more sense than asking "Can a business chicken over-orange a tomorrow?"
@@nowandrew4442 Why would god be bound by the limitations of logic? I presume you are making an exception for him regarding the physical laws, so why not for logical laws? Where do you get the "knowledge" that god can - for instance - violate conservation of energy, but cannot violate the constraints of logical possibility?
My underlying point is that theists claim to know a lot about the omnipotence of god, and claim to know its bounds when pointed out that it isn't literally unbounded. How would you know that "creating heaven and earth" isn't also logically impossible, for instance? It requires quite a leap of faith. And frankly I don't have that.
@@landsgevaer Well first, if you don't grasp the distinction between physical and logical cases, we already have a big problem.
Physical impossibility means, travel faster than the speed of light; create something from nothing. They are only impossible as far as the **currently known and understood** laws of physics allow. And we already "accept" that God created the universe from nothing. So physical omnipotence, here meaning, not constrained to the known physical laws, only means, behaves according to other rules than the ones we know, and that is clearly within our conceptual sphere of understanding, since **any** halfway decent scientist concedes that we can't possibly know **anything** for sure ("know" is the key key term here).
[It's key because, if you think about it, the ***_ONLY_*** "categorical" truth in the universe comes from logic. The physical world is just observations of behaviour; measurements, followed by consensus. This is not "fact"; it is just "accepted as our best estimate so far" until findings surface to unseat it with a better explanation. In fact every scientist, I hope, will openly acknowledge that they STRIVE for their findings to be challenged.]
Logical impossibility, on the other hand, is things like "Up = Down"; "On = Off". We have defined concepts such as these two pairs to be conceptual opposites, so what we're **actually** saying is, an opposite of something cannot be the same as the thing itself, which should be clear, because our definition requires the exact "opposite" (pun intended).
This is why logical arguments must always start by stating the criteria and assumptions of the scenario. Here we assume: "UP" is the opposite of "DOWN"; "ON" is the opposite of "OFF". It actually doesn't matter what terms we choose; if I said "Phone" is the opposite of "Splodge" then the once thing Splodge cannot be is a phone. The really critical point is of course that we are also defining here what "opposite" means. Opposite means, in essence, "that which is the most polarised/distinct/in contrast to this"; in [over-simplified] mathematical terms simply, "Not-this". This cannot also be Not-this, in other words. (I said over-simplified, though it's technically not true; opposite is a special case of "Not-this", not-this being everything-else-except-this, but for the sake of this point, it's close enough.)
God is bound by logic because logic isn't a thing that was "defined". It's purely conceptual based on the parameters laid down. This cannot equal Not-this. Just like Dead cannot be Alive because by definition Dead is the state of not being Alive; if it was Not-dead, then it clearly can't also be "Dead', regardless of the physical world the thing is in.
God is *not* bound by *_physical_* laws because he can create the planets from nothing, fertilise an egg without sperm (presumably rearrranging the egg's DNA) and trans-morph chemical compounds consituting water into that of wine. Those are all physical "possibilities" if we suspend the known laws of physics & chemistry; i.e. they are physically conceivable, just not possible. Yet God can do them, so if you want to argue that he *CANNOT* be physically omnipotent, you have to show **_LOGICALLY_** how a physically omnipotent being can't exist. And we don't have a sufficient knowledge of the full scope physics to be able to do that.
@@nowandrew4442 And now we arrive at claims.
"We already 'accept' that god created the universe from nothing."
How so?
I accept no such thing.
And of course I see differences between logical laws and physical laws. But whereas you seem to accept that some entities exist outside the physical laws, I see no reason to believe that may even be possible. I find that as unlikely as the idea that logical laws can be broken. That latter thing you seem to agree with. Why you are okay with some "laws" being absolute, but then not others, I cannot fathom. Proclaiming that physical laws are "defined" but logical laws are not is a claim that I see no basis for (neither that physical laws are defined, nor that logical laws are not; if anything, logical laws are made up by us to allow us to reason and make sense of things, but physical laws are what we observe outside.)
But we have too a different a worldview, to continue.
@@landsgevaer you miss the point.
You are trying to demonstrate to the believers that their ideas are impossible.
To do that, you must start from their assumptions, and then demonstrate that obvious truths, for example A =/= Not-A, do not hold under those assumptions... Or otherwise demonstrate that those assumptions do not lead to logically-consistent conclusions.
When I say "accept" it's because that is the nature of the proposition. In order to refute that **logically**, you must either:
- show that the assumptions are impossible [logically], or
- show that given those assumptions, basic truths do not hold.
That is the basis of logical proof
So they have an abstract imaginary explanation for an imaginary abstract concept....
I think Matt has got too involved in pointless, irrelevant semantics and abstract meaningless, philospical arguments for too long.
He gives them far too much importance.
I think these kinds of arguments, have become a sort of intellectual narcissism, more about the debaters showing how much linguistic chicanery, they can employ.
It gives them a career in talking convoluted nonsense, about convoluted nonsense.
Quarg the "god" eater was created by bored "gods" to make their lives have a bit excitement in them, as they were bored after trillions of years of existence. It wasn't powerful enough to eat several "gods" combined, so they thought they could control it.
They made a mistake and it managed to seperate and eat all of them and then it died of starvation itself.
There you are. That's logicically consistent and explains everything. Obviously heaven and he'll fell into ruin and no longer exist, as Quarg ate the "god" that was responsible for their upkeep.
This guy clearly just watched 'the God who wasn't there'
Jesus said that "with God all things are possible". He was obviously not correct (Matthew 19:26)
We know that God cannot show his face to any man without killing him (Exodus 33:20)
But interestingly, it is perfectly safe to look at his backside (Exodus 33:23).
And I am pretty sure that God could not create the earth as nice as it is in Heaven.
Wrong. When God declares "all things are possible," he's talking about meeting our needs and not about outlandish, irrelevant ideas. For example, God can't sin, tell a lie or be in error of judgement.
@@wrencestondwanson3437 how do you know that God cannot tell a lie or have an error in judgment?
@@wrencestondwanson3437
That's the great thing about Theology.
Make up anything you like.
Facts are not important.
@@wrencestondwanson3437
"he's talking about meeting our needs and not about outlandish, "
What a load of crap you spout...
So tell us all, when did God specify exactly what he meant to YOU?
All you ever do is spew BS and dumb claims that you cannot prove. You are nothing but a sad pathetic troll....
@@wrencestondwanson3437 Wrong. You provided zero evidence that the OP is wrong. You just gave your opinion or interpretation of a specific verse. If "God" can't lie, then he isn't omnipotent. That means "He" lied or made in error in judgement in the Bible, which contradicts your claim. Thanks for proving the Biblical "God" is fictional
If God created everything then surely that God created all the other gods.
So god NOW can't be so powerful that he defies logic, but can still somehow exist outside of spacetime/before spacetime even existed? How is THAT logical?
This idea of "omnipotence now doesn't mean the same that back then because they didn't know better back then" it's just word games. It's like this other thing called "progressive revelation". For me is no different than saying "we are going to reinterpret this in order to make it fit the current understanding, so they won't notice how absurd the original concept is...or how inconsistent with reality it is".
Make Omnipotence (Maximally) Great Again.
Eternity. It aint what it used to be.
My Nikes are maximally authentic, I'll have you know.
P.S. I'm 21 and haven't actually owned any Nikes since I was 7 but don't tell Thaddeus 🤫
can god create a burrito so spicy he himself can not eat it
If god is maximally powerful, and incapable of doing something that is logically inconsistent, then it is limited by something outside of it's control and domain, and is therefore not the ultimate being it is claimed to be. If god created everything, it created the rules of logic. If it is incapable of breaking it's own rules, then he is limited, and if it is limited it cannot be considered to be the ultimate source of logic or anything else, as it is bound to rules outside of his own domain.
Yes, Matt is right: God must follow logic. But this has a major consequence: billions of people think that the almighty God be HERE NOW. But this is impossible. The problem is that God is supposed to KNOW THE ACTUAL FUTURE. You could maybe consider some hypothetical futures, but ONLY ONE WILL ACTUALLY COME TRUE! Well, God is supposed to know THAT ONE FUTURE. This seems to be a good thing, but it's exactly the opposite. Since that ONE future known to God is the ACTUAL one, the one that will REALLY come true, (God cannot afford any errors), then God must JUST STARE and let IT UNFOLD exactly like it is, NOTHING CAN BE TOUCHED: God would not even allowed to slightly change the weather of tomorrow because that "ACTUAL FUTURE KNOWN TO GOD" must come true. GOD in other words would be like "BLOCKED". Even worse, God would be obliged to EXACTLY TAKE THE GOD'S ACTIONS included in that known ONE future: also his own actions would be absolutely unchangeable. What is the solution to this problem? When God knew the whole future He simply COMMANDED his power "SO IT SHALL BE (but without me)". That's all. By doing so, God avoided LATER OBLIGATIONS to PERSONALLY and EXACTLY take all the God's actions set out in that WELL-DETERMINED future. Thus, God got immediately free from any further obligations, his power was set to operate automatically alone.This means that the God's actions are taken here now by NOBODY, God is ABSENT; this is why God is meant to be just a "spirit" (see the gospels). Christianity is thus the only religion which features a NON-OMNIPOTENT God: Jesus Christ. Of course the almighty God has no "sons". "Son of God" only means that Jesus DERIVES from God, in other words Jesus was in a remote past that almighty God, when He still had that almighty power.
The laws of logic are not greater than God, God did not create the laws of logic, God is perfectly logical. and he cannot create logical contradictions not because he's not omnipotent, but because he is omnipotent. If he can create logical contradictions that he would not be perfectly logical.
Prove god exist first before you start assigning him attributes
@@Lonnie123
Explain the universe without God, or shut the f*ck up!
If god made the universe, he also made the laws of logic, couldn't he change them?
The laws of logic are just descriptions of how reality appears to function. The nature of reality they describe is not something that could have been created because anything that could create something would already be subject to them.
God has to be able to create a rock so heavy he can’t lift. He has to be able to create something out of nothing for the universe to exist. The fact that god can violate the laws of physics when nothing else can, proves his ability to create the impossible hence a rock heavier than he can lift.
So that's the name of it... "the Omnipotence Paradox"... actually, the Central Isle of Paradise is like that rock... although it's not really because it's too big to move, the problem is it's outside of time and space... it being the origin of both. It can't be moved, because all of creation revolves around it. It would be like moving our sun and expecting Earth to move with it, presumably with some sort of compatible motion. It's not that God can't move it, it's why would he? There's no good reason to move it.
A curious thought experiment, that yields little or no valuable thought.
You’re really embarrassing.
@@MrShigura - gee, thanks! (I suppose any response is better than none at all.😉)
So, some day, we'll meet up on the Mansion Worlds, and you'll realize that what I just wrote was not that far off... ok, then I'll let you be embarrassed. 😊👍
Dude, god can make a stone he can't lift. He can also lift it.
@ayy lmao What what a sentimental understanding of logic.... How about he created a rock and then in his mind makes it so he can't lift it.... even a person can do that. Well some scientists.
@ayy lmao circular reasoning... loop error
We "accept" that the concept of God allows immunity to physical laws (as evidenced by creation of solar/planetary matter from nothing). Therefore, this question is better stated as:
"Can He create a physical object that is immune to physical law immunity?" Which when placed this way, is clearly nonsense.
Matt I think your are completely wrong here. I think you are ironically engaged in a sort of special pleading. The damn book says that the deity can do all. If you want to argue about what “all” means then fine, but this callers interpretation of what “all” means is accepted more generally then your definition.
How does that qualify as special pleading? Also, suppose it's true that most Christians think the people who wrote the relevant Bible passages meant literally 'everything', does that make it true? Do these people, and did these writers have philosophical understanding of these concepts?
You have to provide evidence of the god FIRST before ascribing any powers to it.
How do you know aristotelian logic is the "real deal"? How do you know Reality is bounded by these laws. Ah, you redefine Reality, making it 1 on 1 with physical materialism that makes models of Reality ( emphasis on models), assigns quantitative description to objects within it and call it all that is, aka Reality.
So basically you start just with qualitative aspects of Reality, you build a map from it using models and quantitative descriptions and then you call the map itself Reality. Flawless. No contradictions here whatsoever.
"How do you know aristotelian logic is the real deal"?
Maybe I don't. How shall we know whether it is or isn't? What tools should we use to figure it out?
"How do you know reality is bounded by those laws"?
My experience of reality appears to be. That is to say, if I don't actually have a million dollars in the bank, I probably don't also actually have a million dollars in the bank. How this is 'redefining reality' escapes me, but no doubt this will be explained.
"You call the map itself reality." No. The map (our awareness of reality) almost certainly does not encompass the whole of reality. But it is the reality of which we have at least some awareness. There may be, another, ultimate reality of which we are unaware, but that seems to be an idea that we can neither investigate or do anything about.
@@amtlpaul really? You experience every single day qualitative aspects of reality that you can't explain because science has nothing to say about them and also everybody (every single human ever) started experiencing qualitative aspects of Reality like the wetness of water, a belly ache, the taste of sugar etc and from here using induction or deduction we created MODELS of reality and described the objects in it purely in quantitative terms and thus we created a map. And now because we forgot to actually think and most of us don't even know what epistemology means, we take the map as reality itself. Basically we mistake the map for what it is used to describe i quantitative models. Science has 0 to say about qualitative aspects and for most of them it is used the term "emergent" wich is basically synonim for magic in science.
I'm not saying science isn't realiable (of course it is, it has great predictive power and made our lifes way easier) and also i'm not a theist, i'm an atheist, but when i see naive materialism like this and the flagrance with which people have forgotten to think and why they beleive what theyy beleive, it turns my stomach a bit.
This naive materialism based on incoherent epistemology is abhorent to me and it shows the pulse of our time because is present everywhere. People mistake quantitatice descriptions of some aspects of reality with Reality itself and they are very arrogant and vindicative with religion traditions in doing so. Yikes!
@@adriancioroianu1704 You want to argue over whether we subjectively experience water as wet or whether water has intrinsic objective 'wetness'? Water has a quality that we experience as 'wetness'-that quality is objective, but our experience of it as wetness is subjective and occurs in our interactions with water. So what?
Scientists have now been able to go back in time and have concluded that at 10-37 seconds, the phase transition that caused the separation of forces leading to a period where the universe grew exponentially. They are unable at this time to 'see' before that point but they undoubtedly will keep searching. Meanwhile the Bible tells us that God is there at that beginning and always, speaking into existence Light and all in the universe. God's Word confirms that God is omniscient, omnipresent and all-powerful and He invites us all through John 3 16 to know His love for us and His promise to us for forgiveness, salvation, redemption and everlasting life.
If God is omniscient and omnipresent then God also knows exactly what to do to convince each individual without fail that he is in fact God. But for some reason he refuses to do that. Why would that be?
@@blarglemantheskeptic 😆
@@Moosemansmithy what would He have to do that would absolutely, positively work for you?
@@blarglemantheskeptic what would He have to do that would absolutely, positively work for you?
@@blarglemantheskeptic that was not the question. Perhaps your honest answer would be 'nothing, because I have no intention of believing anyway' But correct me if i'm wrong.