Oh do get off your soap box, you sound like a pound shop Che Guevara. We'll come to those other issues shortly, I just want to establish some common ground (albeit so I can then bury you in it). Now, once more, do we both agree that you have no right to take the hermit's turnips? (Also, note that I said 'yes' to the restitution question, though I added a much needed other things being equal clause).

So just to be clear, you agree that you have no right to take the hermit's turnips, yes?

'God' denotes a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
And time is made of the properties or relations of pastness, presentness and futurity.

Yes, that which has been stolen should be returned, other things being equal. Why do you ask?
If I own something and you take it without my permission, that's theft.
It has nothing to do with the law. If there is a hermit on an island and she's built herself a little hovel and cultivated a little patch of land, then you are stealing off her if you just rock up in your state funded boat - 'The Spoilt Brat' - and help yourself to some of her turnips and move into her shack, yes?

No, you said that creating something doesn't entail that one is subject to it. Which was a dumb thing to say as I had in no way implied otherwise. Then you said you were using the word 'something'to mean 'time'. Which is three times dumber, as a) 'something' doesn't mean 'time'; b) 'something' is a considerably longer word than 'time'; and c) then your claim would be false and flagrantly question begging. So, you have failed at this thread. Grade: D.
Note too that picking up a stick and repeatedly hitting yourself with it while shouting 'take that Bartricks!' does not amount to thrashing me.

You seem to agree with my conclusion, but on - I would say - misguided grounds. I don't consider scripture to be evidence - or at least, I don't think one is being epistemically responsible in treating it as such until after one has demonstrated God's existence and furthermore found independent reason for thinking the bible provides a source of insight into what God has done or is doing.
And physics doesn't study time, but sensible events. Thinking physicists study time is akin to thinking clockmakers do as well.

Nothibg you are saying is making sense. No, I don't think might makes right. How on earth did you get that from anything I said?! I think it is rare that one can ever use force against another person. I am anti might!! You are the spoilt vicious one who thinks you can use force to take some of my money to pay for yourself! Pay for yourself or bill your parents. Don't come to me demanding payment and threatening to imprison me if I don't pay.

Here's what a decent person does: they either ask nicely for a handout- which I may give you if you ask really nicely and look sufficiently needy - or they try and make themselves so useful to others that others will give them money for their services.

I think it could be different to a degree, but not totally different. The reason being that it is by means of our experiences of time - our temporal sensations - that we are aware of time. Yet for those sensations to give us an awareness of time, they would surely have to resemble it? The image on a canvas created by a portrait painter needs to resemble, at least to some degree, the image that staring at the sitter itself would create in us if it is to qualify as a portrait 'of' the person in question. If there was no resemblance whatever between the canvas image and the visual image created by staring at the sitter - if, that is, the 'portrait' was wholly abstract - then it could not be said to give us any insight into what the sitter looks like. Likewise for our temporal sensations. If they resemble in no way time itself, then they would merely be being caused by time, but would not be giving us any perceptual awareness of it. As such, time itself is therefore made of temporal sensations - temporal sensations that resemble, to some degree, our own, but are resident in (and so experienced by) God's mind, rather than our own. And that means that though there can be a difference between God's temporalsensations and our own, the difference cannot be too radical else our sensations of time would not be 'of' time at all.

I am anti tax. Why should I have to pay for your education or healthcare or, you know, any of your costs whatsoever? Whatever you cost, pay for yourself or bill your parents. I don't owe you a bean.
I mean, by all means ask. But you have no right just to take some of my money because you happen to want something it can buy and haven't got enough of your own. That'd be outrageous behaviour, as you too would recognize if I did it to you. It's called theft.
And nothing changes if you steal from me to give to a third party.
Your parents owe you a living. I don't. So you are not entitled to anything from me, at least not in any force-liscensing way. And so the state is not entitled to steal from me to give to you either.

Yeah, good job just ignoring the actual case I made.
So, if time exists, you think Godwould not be subject to it? Explain. Explain how God can exist, yet not in the present, past or future. I am all ears. Take me to school dadio

What you say is clearly false. Of course God can choose whether to be subject to time or not. That's the point! How, though? Well, time would have to be God's creation. If time is God's creation,then he is choosing to be subject to it. So you seem to have missed the point somewhat.

So you meant 'time' and elected to use the word 'something'to express that? A word that doesn't mean 'time'and is considerably longer. Clever.

Good job too in addressing nothing argued in the OP. God is timeless. Ok,if you say so. That's how philosophy works. You say something and it's true. No need for arguments.

Dunning and Kruger.

No, you said this:

Just because God created something that exists does not mean God is subject to it. — James Riley

See? You said 'something' not 'time'. So you - you - imputed to me the absurd view that if one has created something, one is subject to it, a view found nowhere in anything I have written.

I said that if one has created time then one is subject to it (and if one has not one is subject to it). If time exists, God would be subject to it. Ok? Time. Not 'something'. Time specifically. Not only time - there are other things like that too, such as the edicts of Reason. But time is what we're talking about here, and time is something that God would be subject to if God and time exist.

Yes you did. And you did it again when you said:

If time exists, then we are all subject to it, God included.
— Bartricks — James Riley

No I didn't and no I didn't. I didn't say that if one creates anything one is then subject to it. I said that if one creates time then one is subject to it (and, indeed, if one has not). And then I said it again.

There are some things that, if they exist, an omnipotent person would have created else not qualify as omnipotent. And there are a whole load of things that are not like that. Indeed, there are some things that

Just because God created something that exists does not mean God is subject to it. — James Riley

I didn't say it did. I am talking about time specifically. If God - hell, if I - create a chair, I am not thereby 'subject' to the chair. So chairs can exist without God having created them.

But time is different. If time exists, then we are all subject to it, God included. And that would mean that for time's existence to be compatible with God's omnipotence, God would have to have created it. For then though God would be subject to it, this would be no more than for God to be subject to an aspect of his own will, which is in no conceivable way a constraint on one's power.

Bartricks If I'm following you, since God is omnipotent (s)he is not bound by the Law of Noncontradiction.

In other words, God can create a stone (s)he cannot lift - but (s)he can still lift it.

Am I getting this correctly? — EricH

Yes, she is not bound by the law as it is her law. But as she is telling us that no true proposition is also false, we can safely assume that it is indeed the case that no true proposition is also false. So, the law of non-contradiction is true. It is just not necessarily true. True, but it doesn't have to be. Please do not forget that it is true.

As God has the power to change the laws of Reason, for she is Reason and they're her laws that do no more than express her will, then yes, God can create a stone that is too heavy for her to lift, and lift it.
She can also create a stone that is too heavy for her to lift, and thereby render herself unable to lift it. She's quite powerful, then. There's really nothing she can't do if she wishes.

Omnipotence is all-encompassing - that pesky word "all" again. Being a bachelor just applies to marriage and bachelorhood, nothing else, not all-encompassing.

And all does not mean best or any other qualified quality. All means all. And if there is anything that falls outside of the all, then the all isn't all.

Wrt your bachelor analogy, the all would mean that you're capable of all relationships, omni-relational, able to be both married and a bachelor, which ignores the problem of contradiction. Follow that thought along and you will arrive at a god that can only be conceived of as pure being, and thus without any will at all. — tim wood

Confused gibberish.

Once more, I am a bachelor. Does that mean I am incapable of taking a wife?

No, obviously not.

It has nothing to do with 'all'. The world contains a lot of wives. All of them - all - are not mine. I don't have a wife. (note, that's true of all bachelors too - all the world's bachelors have none of all of the world's wives).

Now, does that mean that I am incapable of taking a wife? No. I can very easily take a wife. I have a female partner and I will simply order her to marry me and that'll be that. But I have not ordered her to marry me and so I am a bachelor; a bachelor who is entirely capable of taking a wife, despite the fact that all the world's wives are not mine.

In my book, that's a QED. — tim wood

Yes, but your book is unpublished nonsense.

Read what I have said again and explain how the fact an omnipotent being 'can' create a stone that he can't lift implies that he is not in fact omnipotent.

Does the fact I have the ability to take a wife imply that I am not a bachelor, Timbo?

Maybe, but not SolarWind:
Of course, there is a problem. There's a stone and he can't lift it. If he does lift it, then he has not created one that he cannot lift. Omnipotence is a contradictory concept that people have created.
— SolarWind
Which point you studiously avoid. — tim wood

What point? Omnipotence is a property of a person. It's not the person. It's a property of the person.

God is a person who has that property (by definition).

Can that person - an omnipotent person - create a stone he cannot lift?

Yes, obviously.

Now, explain to me how that truth implies any kind of contradiction. Don't be a twit and point out that if there is such a stone, then he's not omnipotent. That's not something I deny. Explain how this person's ability to create such a stone is incompatible with his being omnipotent.

Oh, so, you don't claim that God must be omnipotent? — Janus

Yes, that's right Hugh. If you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I said God is by definition omnipotent. However, that's just a contingent truth about the word God.

In that case, how do you know he is? — Janus

Because God denotes an omnipotent person by definition. You do realize that a proposition can be true without having to be? It is true that God means an omnipotent person. It doesn't have to be. It is.

Have you met him? — Janus

Not to my recollection, no.

Sure, because all you've been saying is "Look, it's true; it must be because I think so!" — Janus

No, I have never said that. Indeed, a cursory survey of what I have said will tell you that I do not believe that anything 'must' be so, as I think there is no such property of mustness. That is, I deny the reality of necessity. Because, you know, God exists and God can do anything, including destroying everything, and thus all that exists - and by extension, all truths about what exists - are contingent and not necessary. So, you know, D- for attention. Up your game, Hugh.

And yes, I do not believe that omnipotence requires having to have created everything.
— Bartricks

But it requires having to create morality? Why? — khaled

I have done this several times now, but you have this firm conviction - do you not - that I am confused and talking nonsense. And this conviction is so deep rooted that it is going to prevent you from trying to understand what I say. For the instant anything I say starts dimly to make sense to you, you're going to have to find a way to misunderstand it or face the horrifying prospect that you may be quite wrong and that I am very far from confused and am not talking nonsense at all. This is the psychological quagmire you've gotten yourself in. If Bartricks is not talking nonsense, then I, Khaled, am a fool. So at all costs, I must find nonsense in what he says - my well-being depends on it.

Anyway, I am not a therapist and so I leave it to you to find some way out of that little mental mess. I will just say again that omnipotence involves being able to do anything. It doesn't involve having created everything. Indeed, it doesn't involve having created anything whatsoever. That is, there is no contradiction involved in there existing an omnipotent being who has created nothing.

But if morality exists - as it clearly does - then an omnipotent being will have been its creator.

And if Khaled exists - as he clearly does - then given his qualities, an omnipotent being will not have been his creator. Out of kindness, he does not destroy Khaled. And out of justice, he puts Khaled in a place where Bartricks is.

Morality and Khaled exists. The former is a creation of God, the latter is not.

↪Bartricks All I can say to that Fartricks is "bollocks! — Janus

That, Hugh, is what you have been saying in all of your posts, just more wordily.

Explain this claim. The claims that morality is Gods creation, and that creating morality is required for omnipotence are vastly different. — khaled

No they're not. Christ. What's the point in me presenting the case again when you don't seem capable of grasping it?

Once more: to be all powerful requires being Reason. And morality is essentially a subset of Reason's directives. Thus being all powerful is going essentially to involve being the creator of morality.

Again: look at the nature of morality. Morality 'is' a subset of the directives of Reason. If, then, one has not created those directives, then one is not Reason. One is merely 'subject' to those directives, rather than being the source of them. One's own goodness and the rightness of one's own deeds would not be matters under one's control. And so if one is not the author of the morality, one is not all powerful. There is something - the moral status of one's deeds and character - that is outside one control. Indeed, more than this, the very rationality of one's behaviour would be outside one's control.

Clearly an all powerful person cannot have anything about them be outside their own control, including the rational status of their actions. And thus an all powerful person would have to be Reason, and if they are Reason then they are the creator of morality.

That's going from the nature of morality and the nature of omnipotence and getting to the conclusion that an omnipotent person would be the creator of morality.

Alternatively one can focus on the nature of morality and recognize that for it to exist, there would need to be an omnipotent being. And in that way one can go from morality - and by extension, the norms of Reason more generally - and get to the conclusion that there is an omnipotent being.

Now you're changing your story. — Janus

No I'm not. Same story. God can do anything. So he can do that. And that. And that. And that.

Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? Yes.

Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift and yet still lift it? Yes.

Does Janus understand this? No. But that's got nothing to do with anything.

You and your God sure are lousy exemplars of reason — Janus

Dunning and Kruger.

Yet she loved Piet Mondrian's Apple Tree in Bloom or Flowering Apple Tree. (I do too) — Caldwell

I prefer the red tree, but though clearly not entirely insensitive to the aesthetic aspect to reality, she's not tracking it particularly well if she's unmoved by the mona lisa but is in love with a Mondrian. That painting is good, no question - but it's not in the same league as the mona lisa.

Poor analogy! If a bachelor takes a wife they cease to be a bachelor. A bachelor cannot defy logic by remaining a bachelor and at the same time taking a wife. Similarly, if God creates a stone he cannot lift he ceases to be omnipotent. The point being that God cannot create a situation wherein he is both simultaneously omnipotent and unable to lift a stone, because that would be to defy logic. If God cannot defy logic, then he is subject to logic, just like the rest of us. — Janus

It's a good analogy. There are minds. Some of them qualify as bachelors. Those that qualify as bachelors do so becasue they are inhabiting male wifeless bodies. That's sufficient to make one a bachelor. That, however, tells one nothing about the powers of that mind. It is simply a description of its current status. And clearly only a total idiot would think that as bachelors do not have wives, they must be unable to have them. They are perfectly able to have wives, it is just that were they to do so, they would no longer be bachelors.

One mind among us is omnipotent - the mind of Reason. That mind qualifies as omnipotent, for that mind can do anything. That's a description of what this mind is able to do, not a description of what it 'is' doing or has done. Now, is this mind 'able' to create a stone it is unable to lift? Yes, it is able to do that. Were it to do so, it would no longer be omnipotent. But that is no problem, for clearly an omnipotent being is able to cease to be omnipotent.

As for being able to defy logic: an all powerful being can defy logic, for were they not able to do that they would not be all powerful.

So, an omnipotent mind is able to create a stone it is unable to lift and lift it. That is, nothing prevents an omnipotent mind rewriting the laws of logic such that they can create a rock they are unable to lift and lift it. An omnipotent mind has the power to make contradictions true. For it is only by Reason that contradictions are unable to be true: that is, it is Reason that tells us that if a proposition is true, it is not also false. Nothing stops Reason telling us the opposite: that if a proposition is true, it is also false. She just doesn't. Except in some cases. Again, I stress (pointlessly, I know) that having the power to do something doesn't mean that one is doing it.

Explain. You frequently talk about how you don’t think God created everything. So why is this particular creation required to be omnipotent? — khaled

I just presented an argument showing why morality is God's creation. Here:

Here is an argument that goes in the other direction, namely from morality to God. Morality is made of directives and values that have a single unifying source, Reason. That is, the directives and values of morality are among the directives of Reason (as is widely acknowledged). Now, minds and only minds can issue directives or value things. And thus the one unifying source of all moral norms and values - Reason - must be a mind. And that mind will, by dint of being Reason, be all-powerful. For Reason determines everything - what's true, what's known and so on. Thus Reason is an all powerful mind. And as Reason determines what's known, Reason will also be all-knowing. And as an all powerful mind can reasonably be taken to be exactly was she wants and values herself being, and as we have already established that moral values are no more or less than her values, Reason will be all-good too. Thus, the source of all morality - Reason - is a mind who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. God, in other words. — Bartricks

And yes, I do not believe that omnipotence requires having to have created everything. But it does involve being Reason and if one is Reason then morality is one's creation. Furthermore, if morality were not the creation of an omnipotent being, then its existence would not be to the omnipotent being's credit. And that would be a fault. By contrast, that you - for instance - are not the creation of an omnipotent being does not reflect badly on the omnipotent being. Quite the opposite.

So yes, there are, I think, billions of things that the omnipotent being did not create: all those things that, were the omnipotent being to have created them, would be to that being's discredit.

God cannot overcome logic though. can he? He cannot be both omnipotent and be unable to lift a stone. — Janus

Oh good grief, do pay attention.

Yes, he can overcome logic (whatever that means) because he can do anything. Logic must, therefore, be God's creation and its content in his gift. Why? Because if that were not the case, then he wouldn't be all powerful.

Second, there's no stone an omnipotent being is unable to lift. But an omnipotent being is able to make themselves less than omnipotent. If they couldn't do that - that is, if they were constrained to be omnipotent - then they wouldn't be omnipotent! So, though there is no stone an omnipotent being cannot lift, an omnipotent being can create such a stone that he is unable to lift, it's just that his doing so would be his making himself less than omnipotent.

Again: bachelors are unmarried men. So, bachelors do not have wives. That doesn't mean bachelors are unable to have wives. That's the silly reasoning of you and Tim and every other 8 year old who thinks there's a significant problem here despite never having taken any serious time to think about it.

Bachelors are able to have wives. There isn't some strange forcefield preventing them from going down the aisle. But if a bachelor takes a wife, then that person ceases thereby to be a bachelor. That doesn't mean that prior to doing so the bachelor is not a bachelor.

Yet this is how you reason: bachelors don't have wives......therefore a bachelor can't have a wife, therefore they lack the ability to have a wife, therefore they lack a power: bachelors are people unable to have wives.

No, bachelors are men who do not have wives.

An omnipotent person is a person who can do anything. Anything. Thus, an omnipotent person can create a stone too heavy for them to lift. They'd cease to be omnipotent at that point, just as a bachelor would cease to be a bachelor at the point at which they get married. But that's beside the point: bachelors have the power to get married, and an omnipotent person has the power to dispose of their omnipotence.

What does it matter if the will is free or not? What matters is that others don't put their will on it. That can make the will unfree. — GraveItty

It matters because free will is intrinsically valuable, or so says our reason. And it matters as well because if we don't have free will then we aren't morally responsible for our behaviour. So, you know, it's quite important.

And God obviously has free will because God is maximally morally good, which he wouldn't be if he lacked free will.

Joking aside. Since I do not believe that there is a mind beyond matter, there is also no female mind (beyond matter). — SolarWind

Well, your beliefs are just that: your beliefs. Justify them.

Minds are not made of matter. I have fourteen arguments for that conclusion. Do you have even one for the opposite?

And it is certain arrangements of matter that we categorize as male or female or both. Like I say, I do not even know what it means to say that a mind has a sex - it is as incoherent as saying that numbers do, or that tuesday is female whereas monday is male.

And to answer ur question, having all powers doesn't actually mean he has free will.
Being all powerful and with out free will can go together.
I am able to do anything that is humanly possible yet I am not without free will. — Vanbrainstorm

These are just assertions, not arguments. It seems quite obvious that having all power does involving having free will, for lacking free will would be an impediment and thus would manifest a lack of power. God does have free will, then. Obviously. He doesn't have to have it - he could divest himself of it, for he can do anything. But he actually has it, for he's all powerful.

And we can get to the same conclusion by reflecting on God's omnibenevolence (an argument I made but that you have entirely ignored, so I will make again). God is, by definition, morally perfect. As such there is nothing one could do to God that would morally improve him. Yet if God lacked free will, then God would not be morally responsible for his possession of the virtues or for his behaviour. Now, as it is morally better to be praiseworthy for possessing the virtues and praiseworthy for one's behaviour, God has free will, for without it he'd be less than maximally good. That is, without free will, there would be something God could acquire that would make him even better than he is, namely free will. Yet that's a manifest contradiction: there is nothing that a morally perfect being can acquire that would make that person morally better, as if there was then they would not be morally perfect.

We can get there by yet another route too: God is Reason and thus God would not be stupid and willfully deprive himself of something he valued having. God clearly values free will, for our own reason - the faculty by means of which God communicates with us and expresses his attitudes - tells us that free will is something valuable. Thus God clearly values free will and so it is not reasonable to think he'd not have it himself, given his all-powerful nature.

Where does morality come from? Is it there for God to find and set or is it set by God in the first place?
If it is God that finds it, it implies there is a higher order he obeys, and if he sets it in the first place, by what mechanisms does he reach those decisions to make some actions pious and some other sin. How does he know? — Vanbrainstorm

God is by definition all-powerful. Thus God is not constrained by morality, but must instead be its creator. For if he were not its creator, then there would be something he did not control: morality.

That is one argument - an argument from God to morality. Morality is - must be - God's creation, for were it not, God would not be omnipotent. (So to your question 'where does morality come from?' the answer is clear: God).

Here is an argument that goes in the other direction, namely from morality to God. Morality is made of directives and values that have a single unifying source, Reason. That is, the directives and values of morality are among the directives of Reason (as is widely acknowledged). Now, minds and only minds can issue directives or value things. And thus the one unifying source of all moral norms and values - Reason - must be a mind. And that mind will, by dint of being Reason, be all-powerful. For Reason determines everything - what's true, what's known and so on. Thus Reason is an all powerful mind. And as Reason determines what's known, Reason will also be all-knowing. And as an all powerful mind can reasonably be taken to be exactly was she wants and values herself being, and as we have already established that moral values are no more or less than her values, Reason will be all-good too. Thus, the source of all morality - Reason - is a mind who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. God, in other words.

You can get to the same conclusion either way, then. You can reflect on the concept of God and realize that morality must be God's creation and wholly under God's control and thus not in any way something that constrains God. Or you can reflect on the concept of morality and recognize that for the concept to have something answering to it, God would need to exist and be the controlling source of its norms and values. Either way, morality is not something that constrains God.

You don't seem to be following the dialectic. I was asked if God had a sex. I said that he did not, as he is a mind and minds do not have sexes. And I emphasized that this is not a peculiarity of God's mind, but is rather a feature of all minds: no mind has a sex. Bodies have sexes. Minds do not.

Now, if someone wants to reject this idea, they have a few options: they could argue that minds, despite not being bodies, nevertheless have sexes. Or they could argue that minds are bodies and thus do have sexes. What makes no real sense, however, is to argue that minds 'depend' for their existence on bodies. For as well as being false, that would do nothing to settle the matter of whether minds have sexes or whether the bodies they depend on do.

Who says I define it intrinsically? You do. I not. — GraveItty

Like I say, if you think there is no intrinsic difference between a 'female' mind and a 'male' mind, then your view is equivalent to mine. It's just you don't realize that you can dispense with the words 'female' and 'male' in relation to minds, as they are doing no work whatsoever.

On the other hand, if you think that there are female minds - that minds alone can have a sex regardless of what body, if any, they are inhabiting - then your view is distinct from mine and I want to know what it is about a female mind that makes it female.

Of course, I suspect that in reality you have no very clear view and will vacillate between the two very different views expressed above, as that seems to be what you've been doing up to now.

Well now I don't know what you're on about. What point are you trying to make?

I said this:

What we know from experience, boyo, is that brains have such components, not that minds do. To get from the former conclusion to the latter you would have to assume that brains are minds. Yet they're not. — Bartricks

That's true. If you have evidence that brains have certain components, then to get from that to the conclusion that minds have those components, one would have to add the premise that our minds are our brains.

What you said had nothing to do with what I said.

I get being like that with me, but you’ve never even talked to this guy before. Get a therapist Bart. — khaled

Get a sense of humour, Khaled.

I didn't say that. I said their gender is determined by the gender of the bodies they are in. — GraveItty

Yes, but there is nothing intrinsic to the mind itself that makes it male or female. Your wife's mind in a male body would be categorized by you as a 'male' mind, and your wife's mind - the self same mind - in a female body would be categorized by you as a 'female' mind, right? So all the work is being done by the body and none by the mind at all.

Note, that's my view too, it's just that I understand it better and express it more clearly.