I would be flattered to be considered even a "silly" or misguided philosopher. — ToothyMaw

I aspire to be a pretty smart guy with pretty good ideas who expresses them pretty well. From what I've seen, you meet those criteria pretty frequently. We don't need no stinking philosophers.

Thanks.

You're just too biased. — T Clark

Nonetheless, I'm more willing to submit my statements and arguments to rational, evidence-based cross-examination than you 'woo-of-the-gaps bible-thumoers'. Again, more than mere "bias" ...

It's anti-"because I say so" bigotry, sir. — 180 Proof

How about a little more philosophizing and a lot less rationalizing 'fetishes & fairytales'? :eyes:

We don't need no stinking philosophers. — T Clark

Ah yeah, the reek of sophistry. :sweat:

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

How about a little more philosophizing and a lot less rationalizing 'fetishes & fairytales'? — 180 Proof

How about a little more philosophizing and a lot less fetishizing rationality fairytales?

Did you see that, how I turned that around. Now that's philosophy!

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. — ToothyMaw

It's addressed by this;

↪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.

Personally, I think the idea of omnipotence is incoherent to begin with, but for the purposes of these kinds of theoretical discussions I'm willing to play along, as far as it goes. :wink:

From what I've seen, you meet those criteria pretty frequently. We don't need no stinking philosophers. — T Clark

Are there any philosophers on this site?

↪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.

↪180 Proof

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

I only "smash" dogmatic, irrational, fideistic apologists – so no, in good Socratic Pyrrhonian Spinozist Humean Nietzschean or Zapffean fashion I will not "stop", sir. We're here to philosophize, not proselytize. Ecrasez infâme! :fire:

:roll:

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

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

What I'm saying is that the unliftable rock contradiction doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent. — ToothyMaw

We agree on this. Generally when I speak with Christians on omnipotence they generally hold to the view that god is 'maximally omnipotent'. Which means that the impossible or contradictory isn't even in scope. It takes a special kind of fanaticism to hold otherwise.

Why should God be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent monster in the first place?

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

"If" they exist? How else can it be?

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.

We have no reason to believe that God exists. — ToothyMaw

Isn't the fact that we and the universe exist proof?

No.

Then where did we and the universe come from? Even when eternal?

Are there any philosophers on this site? — Tom Storm

There are some very smart people with very good ideas who express them very well here on the forum. Yes, I am avoiding your question.

I agree with you. I am often astonished at the range of knowledge and verbal acuity here, along with concomitant astonishment at the levels of dogma and ignorance. But that's life, hey?

Nonetheless, I'm more willing to submit my statements and arguments to rational, evidence-based cross-examination than you 'woo-of-the-gaps bible-thumoers'. — 180 Proof

I don't think that's true. Also, I've never thumped a bible. If you were paying any attention to my arguments at all, you'd know I don't make any claims about God. My only claims are about your and your cohort's arguments.

We don't need no stinking philosophers.
— T Clark
Ah yeah, the reek of sophistry. — 180 Proof

Calling oneself a philosopher doesn't make your ideas better.

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

I only "smash" dogmatic, irrational, fideistic apologists — 180 Proof

Thank you for the new word:

Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths.

no one is claiming he is still omnipotent. — ToothyMaw

Again I could be misrepresenting B, but as I understand him/her (don't know preferred pronoun) God can simultaneously divest herself of her omnipotence yet still be omnipotent. How is that possible? Because God is not bound to LNC.

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?

I can't consider something "good evidence" (or not good) when there isn't any evidence given (by you et al) to consider.
— 180 Proof

This is just more anti-religious bigotry, so prevalent here on the forum — T Clark

You claim "there is evidence of God" and then call my request for you to present it "anti-religious bigotry". Typical apologetics. Evidence-free claims = woo-of-the-gaps = Humpty Dumpty's "it is what I say it is" blah blah blah. Sophistry (bs) replies with word salad when confronted with How do you know that? or Show me your evidence. That's pathetic gassing, not dialectic. :shade:

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.

Gods weren't created. They have always existed. Why should they be created? How can you research this?

You claim "there is evidence of God" and then call my request for you to present it "anti-religious bigotry". Typical apologetics. Evidence-free claims = woo-of-the-gaps = Humpty Dumpty's "it is what I say it is" blah blah blah. Sophistry (bs) replies with word salad when confronted with How do you know that? or Show me your evidence. That's pathetic gassing, not dialectic. — 180 Proof

I know people who have experienced God's presence in their lives. My wife has. I have heard of many others.