I'm sure I'm not, I just didn't read it anywhere, not trying to plagiarize or anything. I don't know if hardly anything I've written is truly original.

Part of the fun is trying to figure this out on my own, at least partially.

Who knows. I don't really even care.

So my point here is that the ability to break/ignore LNC defeats the OP - i.e. God can simultaneously be be omnipotent over the sum process and divest Herself of Her omnipotence. — EricH

I think it is less so that God is omnipotent and not omnipotent over the sum process, but rather that God can restore her omnipotence at any time, regardless of current status. If God decided to make a contradiction such as: "God is both omnipotent and not omnipotent" true, the principle of explosion would follow and we could then prove any statement or its negation true. Or maybe I'm wrong - I just read about deductive explosion today for the first time.

edit: Whether or not the deductions would be true, I don't know. But it seems to me some logical systems would be all messed up.

second edit: rather, the systems wouldn't be messed up; we would just not be able to rely on logical deductions anymore, I think.

So my point here is that the ability to break/ignore LNC defeats the OP - i.e. God can simultaneously be be omnipotent over the sum process and divest Herself of Her omnipotence. — EricH

I think my argument stands so long as God is bound by LNC, but yes, otherwise it appears to defeat the OP. I'll have to think about this. Thanks for reading and understanding the OP.

Btw, you know what D-kers are? — EugeneW

No, what are they?

What they mean is mental illness, mostly schizophrenia, but often manifests itself with religious symbology and themes. I dont think they meant religiosity is a mental illness, nor saying religious people are mentally ill.
I mention it because “sociopath” seems a pretty drastic take on the comment. — DingoJones

I don't think he is actually a sociopath, I just think that his intense desire to be regarded as a big brain atheist manifests as verging on anti-social behavior.

I regret creating this thread, especially since no one has addressed the original part of my OP.

lmao

Why the fuck does that garner a :100: ? You come across as a genuine sociopath, 180. I'm done with you. Shit all over this thread if you want, you'll be getting no more attention from me.

Likening religiosity to mental illness is taking it a little too far. And since when is mental illness characterized as having faith? Where is the connection there? Do you even know a mentally ill or religious person?

Maybe there is an element of randomness that brought the laws into existence, or is baked into the laws that could give rise to the universe? I'm no physicist, or even a philosopher, so I'm kind of pulling this out of my ass.

The answer to 'whether or not "God" can "divest" itself of its "omniscience"' amounts to a distinction that makes no difference so long as your conception of "omniscience" admits of logical impossibility / self-contradiction — 180 Proof

But it doesn't. If you were reading the posts and read the OP you would see that I don't think God can do something logically impossible. You are being very stupid for someone with such a great vocabulary.

Why couldn't the laws of nature have been eternal and have given rise to the universe?

Why does the universe need an original cause rooted in supernatural creators?

Hash this out somewhere else please. This is totally unrelated to the OP. I made no fideistic claims in this thread and neither did TC. No one is proselytizing.

God could do that, or just actually divest themselves of their omnipotence. I think he (they identify as male I think) is saying god could do both those things (one of which is become omnipotent again). I did a search of "law of non-contradiction" and couldn't find B mentioning it.

Do you think that this has ramifications for the argument I make in the OP?

If it came from God, who created God? Is it turtles all the way down? Have you done any research on this?

No.

You are trying to elicit some sort of response from me. But I'll go along.

We have no reason to believe that God exists. No one has ever come up with a compelling argument for God's existence that hasn't been shot full of holes. So, I just disregard supernatural claims. It's that simple.

I agree: God, if they exist, is a monster.

At least you have a sense of humor, sort of.

Why isn't anyone even addressing the original part of my argument? Is the premise that controversial?

↪ToothyMaw "Omnipotence" does not entail 'doing what's logically impossible to do'; that's an ad hoc, arbitrary assumption – magical fiat. :sparkle:
— 180 Proof

And if you think differently then it is just a question of us holding different presuppositions. We differ. Which means we can move on. — Tom Storm

Is it logically impossible for god to lift an unliftable rock? Of course. What Bartricks is saying is that the unliftable rock contradiction doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent.

Sweet Jesus, dude, just stop. You don't need to smash every religious person you come across.

Thanks.

But he makes that argument too, yes.

Bartricks makes the argument that the unliftable rock isn't a contradiction because God being able to divest himself of his omnipotence does not contradict the fact that he is - or once was - omnipotent. If he made the rock he would just cease to be omnipotent. Its that simple. You might point out that at that point god wouldn't be able to lift the rock, but that doesn't matter; no one is claiming he is still omnipotent.

That's my understanding of it.

It doesn't, because if God cannot divest themselves of their omnipotence, they are not truly omnipotent. Unless it is impossible for god to do so? But why would it be impossible? No one is addressing that.

The more common definition of omnipotence is magical thinking? What? The one I provide is coherent. And even according to your own, the formal argument in the OP still stands. And what about this:

You forget that it is the same authority, being, or god, that CREATES that stone. You are not mentioning creation in your example and argument. That is a violation, since the CREATION of the stone is also done by an omnipotent being. — god must be atheist

Do you have a response to that?

I read the thread in which you made that comment, and I made a novel argument in this one. How about actually reading it and engaging with it?

There is a common definition of omnipotence and more narrow ones. What makes yours superior to any other? It seems to me you are bereft of the capability to engage in anything even resembling honest debate or actual engagement with ideas, preferring to skirt around it with sophistry and bizarre comment formats.

Look - no one likes Bartricks or the idea of God on the forums, but you shouldn't deny that some arguments are cogent on the grounds of a cherrypicked definition.

I meant the "silly philosophers" bit, not what you said about the argument. I would be flattered to be considered even a "silly" or misguided philosopher. That's what I was saying.

I don't really understand. God created us in the image of the world? Could you elaborate on what you mean?

That just shows how silly philosophers can be - trying to trick God into a contradiction rather than worshiping him. — T Clark

I would say most philosophers of religion spend their time trying to fix the plethora of contradictions associated with the idea of an omnibenevolent/omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient god.

If you are referring to me, however, I am flattered.

While I'm at it, why do you always have to quote yourself from other threads? Why not actually engage with the OP? Is it even fun to copy paste yourself?

to imagine that our piles of words, even most logically arranged, can oblige God to be like this or like that is magical thinking. — unenlightened

Not when our piles of words reflect the nature of reality - which they often do. You could say the equations reflecting the motion of a projectile moving through space do not oblige said projectile to follow a parabolic path, but they do express a consistent pattern regardless.

Excerpt of a recent post:
The most charitable definition of "omnipotence" I've found is this: the ability of (a) being to do anything that is not impossible, or self-contradictory, to do instantly (i.e. just by thinking) and / or which no other being can do. So "no", (an) "omnipotent" being cannot make something "too heavy" for it to move if that something is moveable; it can, however, instantly move (with a thought) anything which is moveable.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

Your definition is far more narrow than any definition of omnipotence I've seen. And while it might be convenient for your argument, the fact remains that if we go by the common definition - virtually unrestrained power of influence, as tied to God's nature - God should be able to do anything, including divesting themselves of their own omnipotence, or any of their other characteristics. No longer being omnipotent does not necessarily mean that god could never have been omnipotent.

I mean, why isn't it possible for God to make a rock too heavy to lift it and divest themselves of their omnipotence? That's the claim you're making, and you need to back it up. I backed up such an argument in the OP and no one has addressed it directly. Bartricks was right about this one (almost).

You forget that it is the same authority, being, or god, that CREATES that stone. You are not mentioning creation in your example and argument. That is a violation, since the CREATION of the stone is also done by an omnipotent being. — god must be atheist

Exactly.



But this actually matters sort of - at least to philosophers of religion.

Isn’t it true that the same can be said about auto-pilots in self driving cars? If one day Uber replaced all drivers with auto-pilots, you might be upset because you wouldn’t be able to have an interesting conversation with them and wouldn’t get pleasure from tipping them. — pfirefry

I am no authority on relationships or happiness science, but an auto-pilot is not to an actual driver what a pillow or non-conscious android is to a human spouse, imo. But if someone is willing to take that tradeoff, I wouldn't judge them.

I should amend the name of the thread to "(why we shouldn't have) Self-Aware Android Spouses".

Yes, why don't we all marry pillows.

Really, though, it would have to be a pretty good simulation of a person to be an adequate spouse, I think. I mean, can a pillow, or even a non-conscious android, tickle or be tickled? Could either sustain interesting conversations? Can your hopes and ambitions align with a lifeless chunk of cotton/plastic/metal? I think not.

Btw, when I say that Milley should or shouldn't do something I am referring to what I think would be smart for him to do; he can say whatever the fuck he wants, obviously, and is a soldier who has served his country - unlike me, a random dude on the internet who has never had to pick up a rifle. Just thought I should qualify my last post with that.

Yet what can one say? Only that there are these juicy narratives that people want to use and fit everything into. If the narrative is that "The Democrats are making the military woke...and thus the combat capability of the military is in danger", then you will try to find every small detail that you can use for that narrative, be it maternity flight suits or whatever. — ssu

Yes, I know that any small detail can be considered confirmation of some backwards-ass belief, but my point that actually playing into the wokeness narrative is detrimental remains true. Milley shouldn't be talking about "critical race theory", which he might not even know is a legal theory that started in the seventies that is highly academic and also criticized by legal scholars, but rather about inclusiveness and diversity as a tangible strength, and that, as you point out, the military will inevitably reflect society at large. Milley and others who are confronted with accusations of promoting critical race theory in the military should just not accept those terms, mostly because they almost certainly aren't even teaching our soldiers actual critical race theory.

In fact, it almost seems fallacious to me to suggest that we (the reasonable people) shouldn't play smarter just because some people will twist details to suit their narrative.

The first page or so brings out a strange little paradox for those who insist they have free will: Are you free to act against your own will?

Hence the "Oppression of the will". — Banno

Even though that is a neat little paradox, I think this is the best part of the portion of Arendt's essay I have read:

"The rise of totalitarianism, its claim to having subordinated all spheres of life to the demands of politics and its consistent nonrecognition of civil rights, above all the rights of privacy and the right to freedom from politics, makes us doubt not only the coincidence of politics and freedom but their very compatibility."

If, as she states earlier, freedom is known only through tangible realities - such as our interactions with others - not through some sort of apparatus of self-reflection, then how can those who live under the thumb of totalitarianism, in which all spheres of life are dominated by the political, be thought to be free at all? Does this limitation of the will extend to all legislation directed at curtailing freedoms, whatever their ends may be?

Moreover, I find myself wondering if the recognition of privacy and freedom from politics is more desirable than the legislated freedom (such as the second amendment), if the two are not compatible.

Will try to finish the essay, but it's a difficult read for me. How do you get through slogs like that, Banno? I can hardly understand anything that's being said without reading it like five times.