The Intelligent Design movement, he shows, uses evolution as a smokescreen to hide their actual agenda: changing the definition of science and in the process subjugating or destroying science. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Sounds conspiracy-ish, over thought and baseless. The people behind that movement are intelligent enough to neither come up with such an agenda nor to not believe in intelligent design.

Does one 'not believe' in square circles? Or is to speak of belief already to concede too much? i.e. that there is anything coherent to 'believe' or 'not believe' in to begin with? Shouldn't a thoroughgoing a-theism not simply reject 'belief in God', but the very 'god-problem' to begin with? Let's not grant God the dignity of even being 'dead' - there's never been anything that was - or could have been, in principle - alive in the first place, and to even speak of 'non-belief' is already to concede far too much to theology - i.e. that the very issue is at all sensical in any way: that 'God' is anything more than a grammatical mistake for which even very idea of belief is already irrelevant. — StreetlightX

Nothing funnier than destroying arguments with unexpected answers to rhetorical questions, don't you think? I believe in square circles.

Besides, even if we assumed they don't, it'd be because their definition is self contradicting. That's not comparable to deities.

That's what I pointed out in my next comment. The reason I first argued against TheMadFool, then Michael and then TheMadFool, reaching the same conclusion as Michael, was that the premises set by OP were incorrect. Because of that the whole discussion was based on the fallacy of false premise, and Michael only reached the right conclusion due to another fallacy. My last comment fixed the original premises and reasoning.

The mistake in the reasoning is that for all things T there is a group of things K (K1, K2, ...) which includes the properties of T. There is such O that for all T it knows all K, and there is such T=U that its Kx cannot be known. Can O know Kx? It's simply a contradiction, like unstoppable and unmovable objects. As well as you can say O doesn't know Kx, you can say it does so U can't exist.

Either neither exists; or O exists and the possibility of U disproves it; or U exists and the possibility of O contradicts itself.

How will O answer the question:

What is the largest natural number?

The expected answer is that O will say ''no such number exists''. For me this answer doesn't disprove omniscience because infinity isn't a number. It's just a concept that represents, not ignorance, but limits of omniscience. — TheMadFool

That is the answer it will give and it does not disprove omniscience. I fail to see your argument with that point. Is it that because infinity is a concept and not a number, it can't be an amount of anything? Or is the argument that that is an example of limit of omniscience, and comparable of O having a finite maximum amount of information?

Then they're not Gods. What is the point of an impotent God? — TheMadFool

Firstly, gods. Not Gods. With a capital G it's a name, which is the name of Christian god.

Secondly, no definition of god I've ever heard includes omnipotence.

Deja vu.

as always you aren't even trying to understand the other side.

Depends. Is it a potato?

He who first leaves this discussion probably does the first Most true thing. — Beebert

More accurately, the one who leaves after admitting the other person isn't wrong.

A being with absolute and infinite kowledge. That is, it knows absolutely everything, even if that means an infinite number of things.

That's why I said if.

You're right. Forgiveness is essential to God's nature. However, if everything can be forgiven then there's no difference between good and bad. But the distinction good and bad is also an essential nature of God. A paradox. One of the following has to be discarded:
1. Forgiveness
2. Good-bad distinction

Since 2 can't be discarded because that is a foundation on which God rests, 1 has to be the one that's wrong. Perhaps you can do better. — TheMadFool

There is difference between good and bad. Just not in their treatment or consequences. There is no contradiction betwden 1 and 2.

If you don't believe then you're bad. — TheMadFool

What? How? Why? Is this the "atheists are evil" argument? Or is not believing in itself bad? ??? ?

Because you define it that way. O can know infinite amount of information and everything because that is its definition.

Do you accept my proof then? — TheMadFool

No, see:

But not all gods are omnipotent. — BlueBanana

... interesting. We are not allowed to say something is morally more wrong than nazis because then nazism is more acceptable than that?

I meant #3 and #4 in the previous.

While we are discussing the guidelines, here's a copy of a PM I sent to a moderator (no response yet):



Hi, I have a quick question about the forum guidelines: what exactly counts as a nazi sympathiser?

1) Being a nazi
2) Promoting being a nazi
3) Not having any strong opinions on nazism, including not having anything against it
4) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to their opinion
5) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to spread their ideas
6) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to, well, do anything, including killing people
7) Justifying nazism with cultural relativism

The first two and last two probably count, but especially #2 and #3 are unclear. What about the last one as a provocative thought experiment? #justcurious
-BlueBanana

Interesting. You know those things that make you think, "if I was a conspiracy theorist, this'd be suspicious"?

Two omnipotent beings contradict each other's omnipotence, this is true. But not all gods are omnipotent.

Another solution: there are different levels of power. Let's say our natural world is level 1 and any being omnipotent on level x is a level x+2 entity. So omnipotent gods are level 2 so they aren't omnipotent on level 2.

Here I draw a distinction. We can have knowledge of infinity only as a concept, like we have. — TheMadFool

So how much does O know? It knows everything, and the amount of information is infinite.

It is polemic writing, hyperbolic at times, to emphasise a point. — Agustino

Noice.

2. If God is good then God is just
3. If God is just then the bad must be punished — TheMadFool

I don't think so. If God is good he forgives.

5. Hell must exist. — TheMadFool

Doesn't mean you go there for not believing. Even if the reasoning was correct, only bad people would go to Hell, not non-believers.

Fortunately not, this site has an excellent moderation.

O and U contradict each other, so one doesn't exist. Why not U?

O has infinite knowledge, it's a part of its definition. Does it even have to check to knowledge? If yes, what if it can check multiple (infinite) things at once?

What is a better question is, how does O know it's O?

However, the severity of threat is almost unimaginable (hell for eternity) — TheMadFool

According to some.

Again, why would it? Hitler breathed air and ate food, and so do you (I assume). Your ally is Adolf Hitler. Are you ok with that?

You'd probably point out that your example is an opinion while mine is a necessary action, but I can rephrase that as "staying alive is worth the trouble of breathing". Your argument is a gross fallacy. Association fallacy, to be exact.

Why wouldn't I be? Does a "bad" person doing something automatically define that action as morally bad?

the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up? — Mongrel

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall

That the opinions of those who care should be more important: now that's a good idea.

Unfortunately to you, I do care. As I have said, to me the statue represents freedom of speech and tolerance.

You're offended by it and find the statue to be universally insulting, while other people, not offended, are saying it's not offending. Do you see where we are coming from? Do you get why some would say you're biased by you own offendedness and that the statue's offendingness is not a universal fact? Because I on the other side, unoffended and finding the statue also objectively not offending, see why my subjective opinion is worthless to this discussion.

That is why we need something more objective. That is why I asked twice, where do you draw the line? First, when I asked whether thinking that thinking that thinking that thinking that doing something morally wrong is morally wrong, and second time when I asked how many people who interpret that statue as offending are needed.

My beef is with what it represents. — Mongrel

But there's hardly such a thing as representing something objectively. The statue does not represent slavery, but there are people who interpret it to represent that. At how many people do you draw the line? Is one offended person enough to tear it down? Dozens? Five thousands? A million?

Perhaps we should have a 'world park' where the statues of former glories of various regimes could keep each other uncomfortable company: Stalin, Hitler, Lee, Calhoun, Idi Amin, bad popes, tsarist tyrants, Saudi kings, ISIS caliphs, Mexican drug cartel thugs, backward regressive jerks like Trump, record-breaking crooks, et al. — Bitter Crank

Everyone you disagree with? Ok, add the people in this thread while you're at it.

Quite brainless and stupid, actually, which I don't like. — Buxtebuddha

Maybe. I wouldn't judge it so harshly. But radical.

It's not a no-brainer either way as a statue of Hitler would be — Baden

[insert disagreement]

Indeed, quite radical. I like that.

What the fuck?? — Buxtebuddha

What what? I'm failing to see your point here, I thought the part you quoted here was rather cleverly pointed out. Is the "what the fuck" an amazed or shocked kind?

Because it's actions not opinions that are right or wrong? — mcdoodle

This is just the claim that having an opinion doesn't hold a moral value re-phrased.

Imo there are three kinds of "thoughts" (incorrect term but there isn't really a good synonym that I could think of): subconscious, feelings and conscious. Subconscious thoughts/feelings are what we are unaware of. By feelings I don't mean feelings as in your mental state but your feelings or opinions about a subject. Those include random thoughts, the origin of which you are unaware of. Conscious thoughts are what you think yourself because you decide so, and these can be opinions as well. Thinking something yourself out of your free will is a decision and an action.

Yes, I know I chose the terms above badly.

Of subconscious thoughts, a person is not responsible of. People's feelings aren't moral either, but their opinions about these opinions, which are conscious, are. One can for example have an opinion on some subject their own conscious opinions disagree with; for example because of rational reasoning or one's morals. Example given, I'd give (or want to give) Hitler a death sentence, was he alive and the desicion was up to me, but I also realize a being morally superior to me would only put him in jail. Feeling he deserves a death sentence is not a desicion of mine that I'd be responsible of, but knowing that my feelings are wrong is, and thus I believe my actions (which include thoughts) are morally acceptable.

In the case of pedophiles, if they get the thoughts, which are part of the second group, but know that those thoughts are sick, they are not morally wrong any more than any other person. However, if they enjoy those thoughts and think they're fine and don't act only because of the fear of consequences, the person is bad (a bit similarly to how Aristotle's ethics that don't focus on individual actions but the nature of a person).

Tolerance towards intolerance. It could be a statue of Adolf Hitler, and I would still be against its removal even though I'm leftist myself.

Slavery or killing people is wrong. Thinking they're ok is also wrong. What about thinking that having that opinion is not wrong? What about thinking that is not wrong? Where do we draw the line?