@Bartricks All things an omnipotent being is able to do exist since an omnipotent being is able to do them (a thing cannot not exist since an omnipotent being can do any thing).
An omnipotent being exists; therefore, all things an omnipotent being is able to do exist; that is, every possible and impossible thing exists since it can be done by an omnipotent being which exists.
There are two scenarios, either god exists or it does not. God exists. God is an omnipotent being; therefore, all things exist. All things. Not all the possible things, neither all the impossible things, but all things exist if an omnipotent being exists.

I fail to see how you get from 'is able to do all things' to 'has done them all'.

To go from 'possible to exist' to 'exists' is quite a leap.

Having a power and exercising it are different. I have all manner of powers I don't exercise.

So, how do you get from God can do X, to God 'has' done X?

A thing cannot not exist (everything must exist) since an omnipotent being exists. A thing that cannot not exist must exist at some point (it cannot not exist). Therefore, if an omnipotent being exists all things must be at some point, so that all things fulfil their quality of being incapable of not existing.

In other words, since God can do X, then X cannot not exist.

No, God can do all things. That means he can destroy all things if he so chooses. That means that nothing that exists has to exist. All things that exist, exist contingently (including God).

God would not be all powerful if he 'had' to exist, for then he would lack a power, namely the power to take himself out of existence.

It is absurd to suppose that an all powerful being would lack powers that we have. We can take ourselves out of existence if we so choose. So too, then, can God. Rational reflection shows this: doesn't your reason confirm that it is contradictory to suppose that a being who can do anything can nevertheless not do some of the things that you can do? Whatever powers you have, God has too and then some.

It was a pleasure to read. In its own terms, the logic seems irrefutable:

Many thanks for the pleasant comment. Those were quite rare in the forum I used to post on, so it is a very welcome change.

Yet I disagree, because the omnibenevolence of God is not considered.

As you might anticipate, good sir, I do indeed disagree. But before I address my reasonings for this I might preface by saying that although this particular point you bring up seems incorrect to me, there is another formulation which does indeed seem to follow the same conclusion, and with great reasoning as well. Have you ever heard of the argument from modal collapse?

Presumably, by the term "God" we are speaking of the Creator of the Heaven and the earth, and not just some random omnipient hanging out in no-space. Indeed, there needs to be a Creation for Him to be benevolent toward. One cannot be good or bad alone.

All that so, God's omnipotence is hampered by his omniscience and benevolence

First, on the topic of God's identity I refrain from calling God merely a creator, or a person with a set of awesome attributes, or any description that lies between these two or beyond as they bring forth into the conversation theistic personalism or neo-theism as its been called. This is problematic as things such as change, time, emotions, and many other features which I firmly believe are not in God are presupposed in many instances, which lead to a number of problems. Instead, as a Thomistic Aristotlean, I instead affirm classical theisms definition of God as being *actus purus* or pure actuality itself, being ultimately simple, ultimately powerful, and ultimately necessary.

Second, as I've claimed in my last post, to be omnipotent is not to have the power to do anything (which I hope to have demonstrated was absurd) but rather to do whatever is intelligible. As such, nothing can bring forth a four sided triangle, a married bachelor, or move pure actuality; all of these things are unintelligible conceptions. Now, within God there is no real divisions; as such God's omnipotence IS his omnibenevolence which IS his omnipresence which IS his intellect which finally IS his will, which IS pure actuality. Now, because what is perfect in every manner, such as pure actuality, cannot, without being marked with unintelligiblility, move or act in accordance with imperfection, he thus cannot do a lot of what men can do.

However, this is not out of any lack of ability, but rather because any imperfection or wrong or anything of the sort (such as wrong reasoning) is always (in Thomistic thought) a deprivation of what is perfect, good, and so forth; to be doing such things isn't a positive gain but a negative loss. But it follows that there is, from this deprivation, the possibility of having such a thing. Thus, to do what is imperfect aligns with potential being, while to have is in alignment with actual being.

Now, as for Bartricks, I will address your response in time tomorrow as Im at work now. I find your puzzles absurd yet interesting :)

How am I supposed to engage in a meaningful discussion with someone who believes the following is wrong:

>>>Core to the argument: If a given belief/theory is semantically inconsistent (as in it is hypothetically impossible for it be true) then it must be rejected.<<<

If x is semantically consistent, then that means it means something that is contradictory. For example, x = round square. x is a semantically phrase.

So in response to the above, you said:

according to your limited understanding perhaps. — MAYAEL

Again, how can I reason with someone who believes it to be meaningful to have a belief/theory that is semantically inconsistent. I cannot.

Let us imagine a God so powerful, that he could make an entire universe from absolutely nothing. A square circle would be child’s play to such a being.
As a human. I can’t imagine how either of those things could be done, but who am I to judge those whom believe it is possible?

I'm saying Existence is necessarily at least as real as you and me. So if Existence is necessarily Omnipresent (which It is because it exists everywhere, including in dreams), then something Omnipresent is necessarily at least as real as you and me. — Philosopher19

Well, existence is an abstract concept so I don’t understand how it could exist like us if we are concrete entities. If existence doesn’t exist in a spatiotemporal sense then I don’t see how it even makes sense to even refer to it as being omnipresent.

Our universe is just a part of Existence. Wouldn't it be better if the whole of Existence was perfect rather than just part of it. If only a part of Existence is perfect whilst the rest of it is imperfect, then Existence is not perfect because it can be/exist better. — Philosopher19

How can the universe be part of existence if existence doesn’t exist in space and time? I can understand that we can say that the universe has a relationship with the abstract concept of existence because it exists and it contains things that exist. But, I don’t see how a concrete entity like the universe can be part of an abstract concept like existence. Are you saying that existence is some kind of a concrete entity?

Perfection is perfectly satisfied when unrepentant evil suffers. If this was not the case, then there would be nothing evil about being evil. If I committed evil and Existence was such that I did not suffer a loss of goodness as a result of this (so I did not get a headache, or go to prison, or Hell...depending on how extreme my evil was), then there was nothing evil about me being evil. If evil people wen to heaven and good people went to hell, then that's case of it literally being evil to be good and being good to be evil. That is semantically inconsistent with the semantic of Perfection, Existence, good, and evil. — Philosopher19

I think we can reasonably define being evil as simply harming others for no moral acceptable reason. We can also propose an alternative definition for evil as behaving in such a way as to elicit moral disgust. These definitions of evil do not imply that evil people deserve to be punished and thus I do not understand why evil people going unpunished necessitates imperfection in any way. On another note, there are plenty of consequentialist philosophers who believe that punishing evil people is only justified if it creates a deterrent against evil or if it prevents vigilante justice from the victims of an evil person’s actions. Additionally, many free will skeptics believe that some people are evil and yet we are not justified for punishing them because they didn’t choose to be evil. I don’t see why those alternative viewpoints are inferior to your viewpoint on this topic to be honest.

It's only evil/bad for x to be evil/bad because it leads him to a loss of goodness consequentially (despite it not immediately seeming that way). If it did not lead to this, then one cannot say that it's evil/bad for x to be evil/bad. It's only bad/evil for x to be bad/evil when it's actually bad for him to be this way (as in it's against his best interest). — Philosopher19

So, if someone can completely get away with rape then rape wouldn’t be evil in any way whatsoever? Doesn’t this just imply that we only have reason to act in our ultimate self-interest and wouldn’t this defeat the whole purpose of morality to begin with?

Many thanks for the pleasant comment. Those were quite rare in the forum I used to post on, so it is a very welcome change. — Questio

Enjoy it while it lasts! I like to start from a place of good will and fine manners - but have found that as a discussion becomes an argument, it becomes a matter of battling ego monsters - and the gloves come off, good Sir! I'm new to theological logic chopping, but not new to logical implication. It would help if you could define terms - like modal collapse, divine simplicity or actus purus as they come up.

Instead, as a Thomistic Aristotlean, I instead affirm classical theisms definition of God as being *actus purus* or pure actuality itself, being ultimately simple, ultimately powerful, and ultimately necessary. — Questio

So we're using your concept of God, and not the one set out in the opening post on page one? Probably for the best. At least I might learn something from using your definition! It will be interesting to see how my argument does against your definition - my argument being, basically, that God is like a giant in the middle of town and if He moves, He stomps on the little people.

Second, as I've claimed in my last post, to be omnipotent is not to have the power to do anything (which I hope to have demonstrated was absurd) but rather to do whatever is intelligible. — Questio

I entirely accept logical intelligibility as not imposing a limit on God's omnipotence. Round triangles are a contradiction in terms, and the contradiction would be mine, not God's. You'll get no demands for rocks too big to lift from me!

Now, within God there is no real divisions; as such God's omnipotence IS his omnibenevolence which IS his omnipresence which IS his intellect which finally IS his will, which IS pure actuality. — Questio

Is actus purus the same as the doctrine of divine simplicity? Because, from what little I've read - that idea of God suffers from the Modal Collapse argument you mentioned earlier - wherein, from the necessity of His existence - and the uniformity of His being with the act of Creation, everything becomes absolutely necessary. I assume this is problematic because it denies the existence of free will and moral choice?

Now, because what is perfect in every manner, such as pure actuality, cannot, without being marked with unintelligiblility, move or act in accordance with imperfection, he thus cannot do a lot of what men can do. — Questio

Fine! Can't scratch an itch you ain't got!

However, this is not out of any lack of ability, but rather because any imperfection or wrong or anything of the sort (such as wrong reasoning) is always (in Thomistic thought) a deprivation of what is perfect, good, and so forth; to be doing such things isn't a positive gain but a negative loss. But it follows that there is, from this deprivation, the possibility of having such a thing. Thus, to do what is imperfect aligns with potential being, while to have is in alignment with actual being. — Questio

Okay, you've done much to define the terms of discussion - for which you have my thanks, but it doesn't address my argument. My argument is that God can't do anything - at all, because he is both omniscient and benevolent. I'll try to illustrate. In Ray Bradbury's short story "A Sound of Thunder" - a time traveller goes back in time, to the Pleistocene, steps on a butterfly, and the future is dramatically changed on his return. It's where the term "butterfly effect" comes from.

Now imagine an omnipotent God considering intervening in His Creation. He would intervene for the good - because He is good, but there would be a butterfly effect of implication that rolls down the years and must, necessarily, eventually entail a moral evil that would not have occurred but for His intervention. God would know this because He is omniscient. Thus, an omniscient and benevolent God cannot act - at all!

I'm about as qualified as it gets... — Bartricks

Well, it doesn't show.

That's the point. Of course it doesn't show to you. That's the Dunning Kruger effect. You need to be an expert to recognize one. To you I will appear an idiot. To someone with a similar level of expertise, I will appear to be an expert.

I don’t see how these two follow from your or bartricks’ arguments either could you explain?

Being a master logician would mean that you can tell, given premises, whether or not the conclusion is valid, not that you know everything.

Similarly, “knowledge is power” is hand waving. An omniscient person still couldn’t lift an airplane. If omniscience really did lead to omnipotence then "omnipotence" would be obsolete as an attribute of God and wouldn't have been mentioned — khaled

Firstly, being perfectly logical implies that no fallacies are committed. A mind free of fallacies never makes mistakes i.e. the art of gaining knowledge would reach its zenith. That being the case, omnipotence is just around the corner.

Secondly, omniscience implies knowledge of how to produce a desired effect and that's just another way of saying that with omniscience one can become omnipotent.

A mind free of fallacies never makes mistakes i.e. the art of gaining knowledge would reach its zenith. That being the case, omnipotence is just around the corner. — TheMadFool

Just around the corner is vastly different from omniscience. No amount of infallibility will allow you to deduce the current population of earth for example. Or what I’m thinking of right now. You need premises and an established body of empirical observations for an infallible logician to be useful in the least. Which is, again, vastly different from an omniscient person who would know exactly what I’m thinking of right now without requiring any extra data (because omniscience is precisely possessing all the data there is and will be)

Secondly, omniscience implies knowledge of how to produce a desired effect and that's just another way of saying that with omniscience one can become omnipotent. — TheMadFool

False. Some effects could be impossible to produce in practice but not in theory. For example: reducing entropy. It is technically possible for every atom in the room you’re in right now to move in such a way so as to go to a corner and become a lattice and you would suffocate. But the chances of that are astronomically small. And there is no way to artificially produce that effect without increasing entropy elsewhere.

But an omnipotent person would just be able to command that to happen. An omniscient person would only know that it is extremely unlikely, and that there is no artificial way to produce it and so would not be able to produce it or hope for it.

Or a simple example: A perfect logician cannot bicep curl an airplane when asked to and given no prep time. A God can.

An even simpler argument for why omniscience doesn’t lead to omnipotence is if it did then omnipotence would be obsolete. It’s like saying “Khaled is a being with brown eyes, who also has eyes”. The latter follows from the former and so requires no mention.

You need to be an expert to recognize one. — Bartricks

That’s not the dunning Kruger effect. People can recognize experts just fine. Because most experts can put what they’re saying in sensical terms and don’t resort to ad homs when someone critiques their position. You’ve demonstrably not done either of those things. So that’s why people don’t recognize you as an expert. I find it hard to believe despite your claims about being qualified.

Let us imagine a God so powerful, that he could make an entire universe from absolutely nothing. A square circle would be child’s play to such a being.
As a human. I can’t imagine how either of those things could be done, but who am I to judge those whom believe it is possible? — Present awareness

If you can't imagine it, then why believe in it or assert it as possible??

This thread is about whether an all powerful being can do anything - which is a philosophical question that can't be settled by appeal to the bible or anything else. — Bartricks

Damn straight it can't!

Just around the corner is vastly different from omniscience. No amount of infallibility will allow you to deduce the current population of earth for example. Or what I’m thinking of right now. You need premises and an established body of empirical observations for an infallible logician to be useful in the least. Which is, again, vastly different from an omniscient person who would know exactly what I’m thinking of right now without requiring any extra data (because omniscience is precisely possessing all the data there is and will be) — khaled

Your objection brings to mind a Buddhist story. A great competition was held between clairvoyants and logicians. The challenge was to determine the color of an unborn calf. The clairvoyant went first, closed his eyes and became aware of the unborn calf's forehead, it was white and so he declared "the unborn calf has a white forehead". It was now the turn of the logician. He knew that unborn calves in a fetal position would have their tails curled up with the end resting on the forehead [assume this is true] and realized that the unborn calf's forehead wasn't white but its tail was and announced "no, the unborn calf's head isn't white but its tail is". They waited for the pregnant cow to give birth to the calf; lo and behold out emerged from the cow's womb a sprightly young calf with a white tail, just as the logician had said the calf would be. You may need to make adjustments to the story but not so much as to miss the point of this story.

False. Some effects could be impossible to produce in practice but not in theory. For example: reducing entropy. It is technically possible for every atom in the room you’re in right now to move in such a way so as to go to a corner and become a lattice and you would suffocate. But the chances of that are astronomically small. And there is no way to artificially produce that effect without increasing entropy elsewhere.

But an omnipotent person would just be able to command that to happen. An omniscient person would only know that it is extremely unlikely, and that there is no artificial way to produce it and so would not be able to produce it or hope for it.

Or a simple example: A perfect logician cannot bicep curl an airplane when asked to and given no prep time. A God can.

An even simpler argument for why omniscience doesn’t lead to omnipotence is if it did then omnipotence would be obsolete. It’s like saying “Khaled is a being with brown eyes, who also has eyes”. The latter follows from the former and so requires no mention. — khaled

I notice that you have a different idea of omniscience and omnipotence; your take on it is superheroish in a Superman sense - abilities that a being possesses that defy explanation in terms of what is known - but the version of omniscience and omnipotence I subscribe to is also superheroish but in a Batman sense - abilities explicable within the existing framework of knowledge. The situation is very similar to lighting a cigarette with a match or a lighter - the end result is same although the match and the gas lighter are significantly different from each other. That's all I can say.

You may need to make adjustments to the story but not so much as to miss the point of this story. — TheMadFool

And that point is? I honestly have no clue.

He knew that unborn calves in a fetal position would have their tails curled up with the end resting on the forehead [assume this is true] — TheMadFool

This knowledge is not deducible even to a perfect logician, if he is not given premises it can be deduced from is the point. Which is why a perfect logician is not omniscient.

abilities explicable within the existing framework of knowledge. — TheMadFool

So could your omnipotent God cause entropy to decrease? If he can't even do that (bring about a theoretical possibility but a technical impossibility) then what kind of God even is that? He/She/It wouldn't be able to do any more than a sufficiently rich and intelligent person with a lot of time and resources, and I struggle to call people like that omnipotent Gods.

And that point is? I honestly have no clue. — khaled

Never mind.

This knowledge is not deducible even to a perfect logician, if he is not given premises it can be deduced from is the point. Which is why a perfect logician is not omniscient. — khaled

While it's commendable that you're approaching the matter with intellectual rigor, such a strategy is unhelpful to our discussion. I'm being a bit, more than a bit perhaps, loose with the terms I'm employing. If you find that not to your liking, sorry.

So could your omnipotent God cause entropy to decrease? If he can't even do that (bring about a theoretical possibility but a technical impossibility) then what kind of God even is that? He/She/It wouldn't be able to do any more than a sufficiently rich and intelligent person with a lot of time and resources, and I struggle to call people like that omnipotent Gods. — khaled

Time 5,000 BC
X: My idea of god is of a being capable of doing things in ways that defy all natural explanation
Y: As for me, god's omnipotence is a matter of knowing how the universe works and working, as they say, within the system
X: Can your god make flying chariots (planes/helicopters)?
Y: ...

I believe that there are limits to human imagination, however, I also believe it is possible to imagine a being or thing which does not have limits. All sorts of Gods have been imagined by all kinds of human cultures and who’s to say which one is right or even if any of them are right?

As for me, god's omnipotence is a matter of knowing how the universe works and working, as they say, within the system — TheMadFool

Sounds like a bizarre definition but you do you.

I believe that there are limits to human imagination, however, I also believe it is possible to imagine a being or thing which does not have limits. All sorts of Gods have been imagined by all kinds of human cultures and who’s to say which one is right or even if any of them are right? — Present awareness

In that case, it again comes down to one's purpose for trying to prove or disprove God's omnipotence.

There will not be more than one omnipotent being. This is because otherwise one could frustrate the other and thus neither would truly be omnipotent. — Bartricks

Can an omnipotent being create another being more omnipotent than itself? If no, then such a being is not omnipotent because there is something that it cannot do.

If yes, then you have an infinite number of omnipotent beings, each of which creates a yet more omnipotent being - and thus there is no omnipotent being.

If you want to claim that this reasoning is invalid because you have defined the word omnipotent in such a way that there cannot be anything more omnipotent, then you are carving out an exception to your position that God is capable of doing everything. But if your version of God can illogically break the very definitions of every other word in the English language (create a square circle), then God your should also be able to break your definition of the word omnipotence. You can't have it both ways.

As many people in this thread have tried pointing out to you, the very notion of omnipotence is inherently illogical. But if you are attempting to use logic/reasoning to prove that logic/reasoning can be broken - then you cannot use logic/reasoning to prove anything - since there is no way of knowing that any such "proof" is truly valid. After all - it could be that there is an evil God who has created the rules of logic to deceive you into believing such things.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Look - I have close friends and relatives who are deeply religious - and I have seen first hand that religion helps people cope with life and provides a great source of comfort. And my religious friends/relatives do not feel the need to justify their beliefs - they just live them.

Religion is deeply and profoundly illogical. That's OK. Life is absurd. But for some reason, there are folks who cannot accept this and instead attempt to use all sorts of bizarre reasoning to "prove" the impossible. People much smarter than you & I have attempted to do this and have failed. Even people who believe in God cannot agree on the most basic definitions of words.

You cannot define things into existence (whatever you mean by existence).

Take a leap of faith.

- - - - - - -

BTW - There's no doubt that you are much more knowledgeable about medieval scholasticism & the history of philosophical thought than I. That in itself does not make your points any more valid.

I know you find it hard to believe. That's because you lack expertise. You think an expert will say things you easily understand and agree with. That's because you radically overestimate your own expertise and so think expertise looks and sounds approximately like you. Right?

Now in an attempt to drag this ruined and messy thread back to something philosophical, God exists because imperatives of Reason exist and require an imperator - an imperator who will be God. And that imperator will be able to do anything - including things he forbids - because they're his imperatives.

God exists because imperatives of Reason exist and require an imperator - an imperator who will be God. And that imperator will be able to do anything - including things he forbids - because they're his imperatives. — Bartricks

Which still is not an imperative to join the Roman Catholic Church -- or whichever one.
IOW, the God of philosophers has no practical implications in the real world.

The problem is that you're going to have to beg the question to make a case against me. That is, you're going to have to assume that Reason restricts an omnipotent being before you can show that it does. And that's question begging. — Bartricks

For certainly this is correct! However, I would like you to understand that the weight of my rebuttal was in accusing you of entertaining a self defeating proposition, and were you to bring yourself a defense of such an accusation, it would result in vicious question begging. For as I have said:

As to forward the idea of any entity or reality that can exercise the power to bring about self contradictory state of affairs would itself rely on consistency, cohesivness, intelligibility in order to be forwarded. However, that these things can be undermined results in the idea or argument which leads to such a conclusion to be defeated, as what supports the theisis that reason can reveal any truth if reality maybe unintelligible and thus "outside" the scope of reason? Indeed, any justification through rationality would itself beg the question. Of course, the only option left then is to reject the premise that leads to such result, for there is no gain for either Ockhamist, nor Scotist, nor Cartesian or even atheist in entertaining this idea, except of course the most extreme of skepticisms — Questio

What we fall into then, of course, is nothing more than a dressed up discussion of whether or not the law of noncontradiction is applicable to reality and truth more broadly. But, as any logician would know, to ever go against the law of contradiction and be challenged on such a thing would either result in the presentation of an argument for the decision or merely reasserting the statement. To do the former of course would only affirm the case of the opposition, however, as it presupposes that coherent and noncontridictive reason may lead to truth, and as such really only leads the ladder response. But in that case, not only do we have no reason to take your point seriously, as no evidence, argumentation, or anything of the sort support your case, but your very own position is self undermining, as to even forward the idea supposes the consistency of its truth and not its contradiction. Either way, you can take this to be sufficient for intense skepticism (and if that be your case, fine by me mate), or you can admit that such a position is untenable and thus accept the law.

It most certainly does mean that he is limited by something above him. — Bartricks

If God is logos (logic if you don't care for latin) then no, he is not limited by a principle above him, but rather he works only in conformity with his being. This follows from the intellects primacy. You might call this limiting if you like (though I would call that a rather misrepresentative, but I suppose thats a moot point), but the fact of the matter is that what I have forwarded does not lead in any way shape or form to the claim you make. The only way you could make such a claim is if you deny that the will follows the intellect, which you are welcome to do, but I have seen none of it thus far. But perhaps you aren't talking about God (as in pure being itself) but instead just a subject or entity which can do everything and is thus "beyond God". In that case I have one question. If it isn't being itself, then is it in nonbeing? Certainly not, I'd suppose, as nonbeing results in nothing. Is it beyond being? But being encompasses all that is, with only nonbeing having exclusion. So what is this entity exactly? Or perhaps you'll claim I am the begging the question by asserting that there must be some logic behind this entity? If that's so you're making a very poor point. For if we can't even know what it is how can we assert that it holds your conception of omnipotence? Or is this merely a claim we must accept? The point being that every one of these assertions really puts you in more trouble than you think, as it merely reinforces the point I made prior, that you are simply rejecting the law of noncontradiction and leading yourself to a self undermining case as a result.

you think he can't will that a four sided triangle exist. Even I can do that!! — Bartricks

Then you either don't know what a triangle is or the number four, (or alternatively your undermining everything you say by attempting to present your vision of omnipotence as valid in some manner even at the sacrifice of the very principle of noncontradiction it rests upon).

And you are, of course. The 'divine intellect' is not God. It's God's intellect. My intellect is not me. It's my intellect. — Bartricks

Ah, then you clearly don't know what divine simplicity means or is. You see, God is not some anthropomorphic being as many make him out to be. For if he did, and he had parts (a intellect separate from a will separate from his love, etc.) their principle of union would be more fundamental than God himself. And as I'm sure you'd agree (seeing as you don't think God is subject to rationality), its not God unless its ultimately fundamental. As such, God must be without parts, purely simple. That also means that if he has a will and intellect, they must be really indistinguishable and the same, meaning the only way we can talk about such a separation is through logic, or virtual separation as its called. So no, you may not be your intellect or your will, for you aren't supremely simple and you do have a more fundamental principle (many in fact) above. God, however, does have all these attributes in him as the same thing.

And what does "God only acts in accordance with his intellect" mean if not "God does what he does"? — Bartricks

It means he acts perfectly intelligibly, meaning in accordance with right reason and rationality and not contrary to that, as that would be a case of an imperfect intellect.

You are just like the rest and think of God as straightjacketed. That's conceptually confused. It's also, of course, offensive to God - telling everyone that he can't do this and can't do that...the cheek of it!! — Bartricks

Well Bartricks, is nice to know that you take the thoughts of ancient Christian philosophers very seriously and don't instead look to shoehorn a more contemporary protestant fundamentalist's interpretation of God into your philosophy... oh I'm sorry, no. My good friend, it seems as if you have a bad case of thinking yourself superior to two thousand years of Christian theistic thought and reason. Which is fine, I'm okay with that, and encourage it to some extent. Just don't claim me to be a man subverting the traditional idea of God with a much cooler and hip "new" concept, for St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, and St. Anselm would like a word with you.

As for

Enjoy it while it lasts! I like to start from a place of good will and fine manners - but have found that as a discussion becomes an argument, it becomes a matter of battling ego monsters - and the gloves come off, good Sir! — counterpunch

I am beginning to see such. :lol:
In any case, I will respond to you when time is generous. You raise many good points, and I believe you will find some of the information on divine simplicity and modal collapse interesting.

One may not “prove or disprove” God’s existence, one may only believe or not believe. One does not believe in God based on evidence, but rather based on faith. Faith does not require evidence, hence that is why it is called faith. Faith in a God as creator of all things, would make this God very powerful indeed!

Right? — Bartricks

Doubt it. Still think you’re just spouting nonsense and calling it expertise. Would welcome being proven wrong though.

God exists because imperatives of Reason exist and require an imperator — Bartricks

As I said, I don’t buy that they’re imperatives. There are certainly imperatives to stick to the laws of reason. But the laws themselves are not imperatives. You claim to have argued that they are, if so quote one of your arguments and I’ll show why it doesn’t work.

To better understand what you mean: Is the law of gravity an imperative? Did someone need to will it?

And that imperator will be able to do anything - including things he forbids - because they're his imperatives. — Bartricks

I don’t see how being able to decide what the laws of logic are leads to being able to do anything. Because the way I see it, logic is a mental faculty, not something that is in the world itself. Changing the laws of logic to me just means changing how people think, not changing anything about the world.

And I don’t see at all how being the arbiter of these laws makes one omniscient. I’ve explained why to theMadFool.

Just around the corner is vastly different from omniscience. No amount of infallibility will allow you to deduce the current population of earth for example. Or what I’m thinking of right now. You need premises and an established body of empirical observations for an infallible logician to be useful in the least. Which is, again, vastly different from an omniscient person who would know exactly what I’m thinking of right now without requiring any extra data (because omniscience is precisely possessing all the data there is and will be) — khaled

Sure, no rush! I did find your post interesting as it is so very well written, and well informed. It's like you're building a castle, the way you construct the argument - slamming each piece into place with the weight of two thousand years of Christian theistic thought and reason. What's interesting; and I was reading a little Spinoza on Modal Collapse, is that the tradition of theistic thought understand the nature of God with reference to the implications for human existence and morality - whereas, others have advanced theories of God that would certainly lead to the giant in the middle of town, crushing all the little people - just to assert his ability to produce 4 sided triangles or whatever. What possibility of reason would there be for us - with a deity who somehow reaches beyond himself to contradict the laws of non-contradiction inherent to, and following from his being? How could an omnipotent contradiction even exist? It makes no sense! But as I say, I'm in no hurry.

You provide no evidence that I am begging the question and appeal not to arguments, but authority figures.

Have I denied the law of non-contradiction? No. I think that if a proposition is true, it is not also false. I believe that as firmly as you do. If you are labouring under the impression that I deny it, then you're confused and you're attacking a straw man.

You are doing what others do. You are confusing having an ability with exercising it. God can create a true proposition that is also false. That doesn't mean he has (although perhaps he has, of course - perhaps "this proposition is false" is one....but let's not get into that as it's beside the point). So, again, in reality no true proposition is also false. You're not more confident about that than I.

Now, if you want to add to the law of non-contradiction the claim that it is 'necessarily' true that no true proposition is also false, then I deny that. For I deny that anything is necessarily true or necessarily existent. And I deny that becuase God exists and God can do anything and thus nothing is necessarily true or necessarily existent.

But denying that the law of non-contradiction is a necessary truth is not the same as denying that it is true, yes? So again: I think no true proposition is also false. I think it is 'possible' for God to bring into being such a proposition, for it is down to God that no true proposition is not also false, and thus up to him whether that continues to be the case. But there's what is the case and what can be the case.

I am begging no questions. You think I am, because you think that if I appeal to reason to establish that God can do anything, then somehow that means that what I prove with reason is bound by reason, yes?

That's just simply false, or at least I can see absolutely no reason to think it is true. That's like thinking that what I can see with my eyes is bound by my eyes, as if my eyes have power over what exists. It's fallacious. I can see lots of things with my eyes and only with my eyes, but that does not mean that my eyes exercise power over what exists.

Similarly then, what I can discover by reason is not thereby bound by reason. I can discover by reason - as can anyone who exercises it as carefully and diligently as I do - that God exists, for I can discover by reason that reason's imperatives are the imperatives of a mind and that the mind in question, by virtue of being the mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason, will be able to do anything.

Now, if you think I have not uncovered this by my reason, then you can simply highlight an error in my reasoning below:

"A law of Reason is an imperative or instruction to do or believe something.

But imperatives require an imperator, instructions an instructor. And only a mind can instruct or issue a command. Thus this premise is true:

1. If there are laws of Reason, then there is a mind whose laws they are

It is also not open to reasonable doubt that there are laws of Reason. For if you think there are not, then either you think there is a reason to think there are not - in which case you think there are, for a 'reason to believe' something is an instruction of Reason - or you think there is no reason to think there are laws of Reason yet disbelieve in them anyway, in which case you are irrational. Thus, this premise is true beyond a reasonable doubt too:

2. There are laws of Reason

From which it follows:

3. Therefore, there is a mind whose laws are the laws of Reason

The mind whose instructions and commands constitute the laws of Reason would not be bound by those laws, as they have the power over their content. A mind that is not bound by the laws of Reason is a mind that can do anything at all. Thus, this premise is true:

4. The mind whose laws are the laws of Reason is omnipotent

The mind whose instructions and commands constitute the laws of Reason will also have power over all knowledge, for whether a belief qualifies as known or not is constitutively determined by whether there is a reason to believe it - and that's precisely what this mind determines. Thus:

5. The mind whose laws are the laws of Reason is omniscient

Finally, moral laws are simply a subset of the laws of Reason (the moral law is, as Kant rightly noted, an imperative of Reason). And so the mind whose instructions and commands constitute the laws of Reason will be a mind who determines what's right and wrong, good and bad. As the mind is omnipotent, the mind can reasonably be expected to approve of how he is, for if he were dissatisfied with any aspect of himself, he has the power to change it. And if this mind fully approves of himself, then this mind is fully morally good, for that is just what being morally good consists of being. Thus, this premise is also true beyond all reasonable doubt:

6. The mind whose laws are the laws of Reason is omnibenevolent.

It is a conceptual truth that a mind who exists and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent 'is' God. Thus:

7. If there exists a mind who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then God exists

From which it follows:

8. Therefore, God exists."


So, I have not begged any questions for I have not assumed that there is a being who can defy Reason, rather I have concluded that there is.

And it is also self-evident to Reason that a being who can defy the imperatives of Reason is more powerful than one who cannot. And thus it is self-evident to reason that the being you describe -a being bound by Reason - is not all powerful and thus not God.

My good friend, it seems as if you have a bad case of thinking yourself superior to two thousand years of Christian theistic thought and reason. Which is fine, I'm okay with that, and encourage it to some extent. Just don't claim me to be a man subverting the traditional idea of God with a much cooler and hip "new" concept, for St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, and St. Anselm would like a word with you. — Questio

I think St Anselm and I would get along like a house on fire. He'd bloody love my proof of God. I mean, it's better than his, isn't it? And in 2900 your future twin will be talking in hallowed terms about St Bartricks and how foolish are those who put themselves above him. I mean, it has quite a ring to it - St Bartricks. I like it.