Explain this claim. The claims that morality is Gods creation, and that creating morality is required for omnipotence are vastly different. — khaled
And yes, I do not believe that omnipotence requires having to have created everything.
— Bartricks
But it requires having to create morality? Why? — khaled
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. — Bartricks
Oh, so, you don't claim that God must be omnipotent? — Janus
In that case, how do you know he is? — Janus
Have you met him? — Janus
Maybe, but not SolarWind:That's the silly reasoning of you and Tim and every other 8 year old — Bartricks
Which point you studiously avoid. But we have to remember yours is just your definition. Not a sound one, however.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
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
In my book, that's a QED. — tim wood
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
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
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
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
I have done this several times now, but you have this firm conviction - do you not - that I am confused and talking nonsense — Bartricks
If Bartricks is not talking nonsense, then I, Khaled, am a fool. — Bartricks
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
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
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
And how again do you resolve the old problem of God making something so heavy he cannot lift it? — tim wood
God cannot overcome logic though. can he? He cannot be both omnipotent and be unable to lift a stone. — Janus
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
He was programmed to be this God that labels some actions as pious and others as sin. — Vanbrainstorm
Yes, otherwise it would not be almighty.Does God have free will?
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.