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.

↪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.

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.

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

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

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.

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. — Bartricks

Oh, so, you don't claim that God must be omnipotent? In that case, how do you know he is? Have you met him?

The order of the O.P.'s premises leads to a contradiction.

For, if, according to "premise 1," "somethings are pious while others are sin," then, contrary to "premise 2," God couldn't have decided that "somethings are pious while others are sin," since, according to the order of the premises, the fact that "somethings are pious while others are sin" antecedes what God decides (in "premise 2").

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.

That's the silly reasoning of you and Tim and every other 8 year old — Bartricks

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. But we have to remember yours is just your definition. Not a sound one, however.

Nor have you addressed the question as to what decision an omnipotent God would be faced with and how he could be faced with it. He knows all, can do and does all. All that's left is simply to be. Since he knows all, did he lift the stone or not? Or, can he lift the stone or not? These simple questions do not evaporate merely because you breathe a dismissive air at them.

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.

God is all powerful, — Bartricks

God can do anything. — Bartricks

God can make a stone too heavy for him to lift. — Bartricks

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. — Bartricks

In my book, that's a QED.

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?

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.

Why the reluctance to address this? It’s the third time I repeat it now:

How can the mind that determines what is reasonable, lift a rock? Or can it not? How can the mind that determines what is reasonable affect those that refuse to listen to reason such as yourself? Or can it not? — khaled

No, to be reason doesn’t make you omnipotent. As there are still things you can’t do. Like lift a rock (as opposed to making reasonable people believe it was lifted) or make someone who doesn’t listen to reason do something. An inability to do those implies that deciding what is reasonable to believe does not make one omnipotent.

Now for the rest of your response:

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. — Bartricks

Let’s assume for a second that being reason = being omnipotent. Even then:

God did not need to create the moral directives did he? He did create them, but he didn’t need to correct? Similar to the law of non contradiction:

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. — Bartricks

God determines what is reasonable to believe and what is not reasonable, he could’ve been completely silent on the topic of what’s right and wrong and not provided us with any reasons to believe this or that is right or wrong. In that case he’d still be omnipotent yes? So it seems that creating morality is not necessary for omnipotence

As you even say yourself:

there is no contradiction involved in there existing an omnipotent being who has created nothing. — Bartricks

Morality is - must be - God's creation, for were it not, God would not be omnipotent. — Bartricks

The above two statements contradict. One says that God doesn’t need to create anything to be omnipotent. The other says that morality must be his creation for him to be omnipotent.

And what evidence do you have that it was a singular mind that told us the imperatives of reason anyways? Why could it be a group of human minds? Where did you get the idea that all of it comes from one source?

I have done this several times now, but you have this firm conviction - do you not - that I am confused and talking nonsense — Bartricks

Correct. Because it is what is reasonable to believe.

If Bartricks is not talking nonsense, then I, Khaled, am a fool. — Bartricks

But no, I have no such fears. Even if you’re right that doesn’t necessarily make me a fool. I’ve openly admitted to being wrong on the site multiple times, but I’m not wrong in this case.

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?

Yes. Your last sentence sums it up nicely. It tends to happen with first principles: we can only get so far before we have to say "this is the way it is".

This God talk of omnipotence and omniscience is familiar enough. Perhaps it would be more fruitful to apply certain limits to such a hypothetical being. The reasoning is that, for a being to be a being, including a supreme one, it has to have a nature of some kind.

If the nature of this being is infinite, then it has infinite scope. But such boundlessness would not allow for any mechanism to develop. It's only within limits that existence is possible, otherwise the term existence loses meaning.

Not that I believe any of this, but we can substitute "Nature" for "God", and see if something comes out of it.

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.

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.

You're a fool. I'm a fool for replying to your foolishness.

Bart and I had this out three months ago on Necessity and God

I don't believe there are any necessary truths.
— Bartricks

I see. So there can never be any necessary truths, in any circumstances.

And presumably that there are no necessary truths is not a necessary truth - after all, if it were, you would be contradicting yourself.

SO that there are no necessary truths is itself a contingent truth. And yet true in all situations. And this is not a contradiction.

Basically, you've got no idea. — Banno

Bart's contradiction is in asserting that the LNC is true in all possible situations but contingent rather than necessary.

But it was that discussion with Bart that set me to looking at paraconsistent logic and dialetheism, and the several threads that ensued. That was worth it.

SO even a fool can have a use.

I'll just drop this here, in case someone finds it useful:

• All theorems of propositional calculus are necessary theorems of modal logic.
• The Law of Noncontradiction is a theorem of propositional calculus.
• Therefore the Law of noncontradiction is a necessary theorem of modal logic.
• If the Law of Noncontradiction is a necessary theorem, then it is not contingent.
• The law of noncontradiction is not contingent.

QED

Thrice the fool Bartricks is, once because you are indeed a great fool, twice the fool for engaging with Bartricks and thrice the fool for doing so repeatedly. Godsakes man, you have already done this dance and drawn the same conclusion!
Have you thought about what this implies about you? Hint: it has something to do with the love of ones own voice…

And how again do you resolve the old problem of God making something so heavy he cannot lift it? — tim wood

One would imagine (s)he is also the stone. The stone isn’t separate from god as (s)he is supposedly omnipresent. So the question is “can god create a portion/ part of themselves from themself” which rationally would be a yes.

Supposing god being everything means god = universe. The rock is an analogy for “singularity” as it is the concept of everything being condensed into one state/condition non separate from itself in terms of time space and energy. An actual physical rock requires too many variables in order to exist: different elements, space, time, certain forces ... some of which must not be too strong or too weak. These of course also exist outside of the rock. You couldn’t have a rock with no space or time or gravity this would be nonsense.

So one would say that if god has free will to do anything he/ she certainly enjoys order and logical relationships. Perhaps that is part of their being - a logic/ reason by which to make sense of what they are.

(s)he is not bound by the Law of Noncontradiction. — EricH

That's the right question.

What do you suppose is the relation between this thread and 's You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher?

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

Of course they can. They are omnipotent. They are bound though by the possibilities. If they could do everything, they can do nothing. If you can't lift a stone, then you can't. If you can't travel faster than light then you can't. If they could there lives would be chaotic. A whimsical fleeting existence. God's are not like that. Like the universe isn't, which they created in their image. Is their will free? Of course. If they don't force the wills of each other.

The view of @Bartricks is mind centered. It's all about the mind. I guess his mind is a great one. But what's so special about it? It can be free, it can be oppressed and the will can be hold by other minds tied to bodies with a will. To say it's unfree and ruled by a physical laws, that it is determined by them is non-sense. Just as it's non-sense to say its thoughts or other experiences are determined by our genes or memes in order for them to propagate themselves. Or by whatever abstract principle.

Premise 2: God decides which is pious or not because he is all knowing.

Deduction: if God decides somethings as pious and somethings as sin, he, before hand, was endowed with knowledge. — Vanbrainstorm

No, God does not decide, it's dishonorable one that accuses you of sin, and all that God does is judgement based on those accusations.

He was programmed to be this God that labels some actions as pious and others as sin. — Vanbrainstorm

No, God gave free will, therefore the one that makes wrong choices is the one that labels it self.

God is love as opposite to hate, therefore God does not seduce man.

Does God have free will?

Yes, otherwise it would not be almighty.

A more appropriate question would be, why God gave free will?

EDIT:
I'm basing this on specific God, unless there is some other God you're talking about?

Dunning and Kruger.

What do you suppose is the relation between this thread and ↪T Clark's You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher? — Banno

Do you think God should read philosophy too? He already has to read the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, all those other religious documents, and the Wall Street Journal.

Premise 1: somethings are pious while others are sin.
Premise 2: God decides which is pious or not because he is all knowing.

Deduction: if God decides somethings as pious and somethings as sin, he, before hand, was endowed with knowledge. He was programmed to be this God that labels some actions as pious and others as sin. if on the rather hand he decides these things after studying human actions, the foundation by which he uses to analyze actions to label them as pious or sin, are programmed. In both cases God becomes a programmed machine. If he is programmed it begs the question who is the programmer, which we can create another god and continue to infinity with other Gods. Which makes the whole idea obsolete.

This in turn makes his existence questionable. — Vanbrainstorm

God was not beforehand endowed with knowledge or affterwards endowed with knowledge. He did not sit at the table and decided as a human person would. Rather he created the world by his will and in this world some things are pious and some sinful. Why would he be programmed. He is cause sui, cause ot itself. In your language the unprogrammed programmer. So yes, he has free will, he is freedom actually. Our freedom is caused by us being material. We are not creators but created.