Well, I did not get that drift from you. I thought I had to make you make a stand. If your position was that right from the start, I missed it, as I was mislead.
Mislead by what? I don't know. Perhaps by my interpretation/miscomprehension of what you said. — god must be atheist
But I suppose one can have a tendency to read over what is spelled out in the open.God is pure actuality (or pure being itself if you'd like), which is analogous I suppose to infinity, then nothing less than pure actuality (such as an act/potency composite) could ever limit, derail, encumber, or even produce change in God. — Questio
So now you agree that God is not omnipotent, because omnipotence is a concept that is absurd in and by itself — god must be atheist
If you agree that God's abilities and actions are not subject to logic, — god must be atheist
then you agree that Galileo was wrong — god must be atheist
because though his theory was logical and right on, it still got rejected by the Chruch on the same reason: the use of logic is not a valid tool to question ways of the Lord. — god must be atheist
Hence, since you subscribe to this decree, and you deny the validity of logic when it comes to scrutinizing the scriptures, you must agree that the Earth is flat (since Galileo is wrong). — god must be atheist
Therefore, if you believe the Earth is NOT flat, then you negate your stance, and you agree that God's words, teachings, and very essence are also subject to logic. — god must be atheist
What? I'm sorry good friend, but where on Earth do you get that?
— Questio
You did say you agreed with me,
By the way, on a side not, completely agree with this response
— Questio
until you thought of a decree of church figures:
God is not subordinate to logical cohesiveness
— Questio — god must be atheist
"Your argument makes perfect sense logically, Galileo/God Must Be Atheist, but we reject it because the scriptures say otherwise."
— god must be atheist
Are you perhaps referring to this:
By the way, on a side not, completely agree with this response (and I wish I could like comments as there are many that either ammuse me or make solid points worthy of recognition).
At least until...
you realize that [the voluntarist] would merely assert that God is not subordinate to logical cohesiveness
— Questio
...and as such can make the contridiction both valid logically yet untrue at the same time. Is it absurd? Absolutely. Do they deserve to be called out for it? Certainly. Does that mean they'll be convinced by this argument? Likely not my friend. Though I commend your effort :).
— Questio
If so, you most definitely are misunderstanding me. For the volunturist - based off of their central premise that the will has primacy over the intellect (and not scripture, for God's sake) - is who would find a way to side step your argument. That has nothing to do with flat Earths' or my position at all; my position is that the voluntarist are wrong in asserting that the will is first over the intellect, and as such God cannot do things which are unintelligible, meaning your argument falls on the premise
god can create a stone that he can't lift.
— god must be atheist
, because such a thing can't happen, for...
given that God is pure actuality (or pure being itself if you'd like), which is analogous I suppose to infinity, then nothing less than pure actuality (such as an act/potency composite) could ever limit, derail, encumber, or even produce change in God. It would be like saying that given a big enough number we can actually reduce infinity to a finite quantity; such an assertion simply does not understand that infinity cannot be reached by finitude (unless it is an infinite series of finite quantities, but then we are dealing with an infinite and an infinite, not a finite and an infinite). So yes, because there is nothing beyond being itself other than nonbeing (which is exactly that: nothing, and thus has zero effect on being), nothing can inhibit God (pure subsisting being) even theoretically as that would obviously suggest, as I said, something beyond being itself (a plainer absurdity cannot be found, as being encompasses what is, thus if something is yet isn't being... well that's like saying there's a triangle out there without three sides).
— Questio
As such, my agreeing with your argument was my acknowledgment that the alternative to my position is absurd and irrational (something they embrace, strangely), while my claim that it would nonetheless be of no use is based off the fact that they do not believe intelligibility eliminates the possibility or actuality of certain state of affairs. That is by no means an advocation for voluntarism, but rather a rebuttal of your argument on the basis of ignorance pertaining to voluntarist premises. Again, please, next time, actually read what I wrote in proper context and with a dash of diligence before you fire lazy shots at me, or indeed, anyone else. — Questio
"Your argument makes perfect sense logically, Galileo/God Must Be Atheist, but we reject it because the scriptures say otherwise." — god must be atheist
By the way, on a side not, completely agree with this response (and I wish I could like comments as there are many that either ammuse me or make solid points worthy of recognition).
At least until...
you realize that [the voluntarist] would merely assert that God is not subordinate to logical cohesiveness
— Questio
...and as such can make the contridiction both valid logically yet untrue at the same time. Is it absurd? Absolutely. Do they deserve to be called out for it? Certainly. Does that mean they'll be convinced by this argument? Likely not my friend. Though I commend your effort :). — Questio
, because such a thing can't happen, for...god can create a stone that he can't lift. — god must be atheist
given that God is pure actuality (or pure being itself if you'd like), which is analogous I suppose to infinity, then nothing less than pure actuality (such as an act/potency composite) could ever limit, derail, encumber, or even produce change in God. It would be like saying that given a big enough number we can actually reduce infinity to a finite quantity; such an assertion simply does not understand that infinity cannot be reached by finitude (unless it is an infinite series of finite quantities, but then we are dealing with an infinite and an infinite, not a finite and an infinite). So yes, because there is nothing beyond being itself other than nonbeing (which is exactly that: nothing, and thus has zero effect on being), nothing can inhibit God (pure subsisting being) even theoretically as that would obviously suggest, as I said, something beyond being itself (a plainer absurdity cannot be found, as being encompasses what is, thus if something is yet isn't being... well that's like saying there's a triangle out there without three sides). — Questio
↪Questio You realize that you sound completely like Galileo's critics in the church in his time — god must be atheist
They said something similar to this quote: "Your argument makes perfect sense logically, Galileo/God Must Be Atheist, but we reject it because the scriptures say otherwise." — god must be atheist
I wonder if you, Questio, think, accordingly, that the Earth is flat. — god must be atheist
If you tell me that you do, then I accept your counter-argument. If you think the Earth is not flat, then I rest my case. — god must be atheist
I can go to my kitchen. That doesn't mean I am in my kitchen. I can create something too heavy for me to lift. That doesn't mean I have. And so on.
— Bartricks
The potency is there. The capacity to do so. The ability to do so.
Yes, god can create a stone that he can't lift. Can he? Let's suppose that he can. Then CAN he lift it? No, he can't. He fails at the CAN LIFT part.
Therefore he fails the test at the "can" state. He does not heave to actually go and try and do it.
If, on the other hand, god CAN'T create a stone (whether he actually tries or not) that he couldn't lift, that is, he can only create stones he can lift, then he fails the CAN CREATE part.
Either way, whether he actually tries in real time, or just supposes to do so, he necessarily fails in one or the other of the "CAN DO"-s.
And we agreed that omnipotence is a potency to "do". The capacity, the ability, to "do". Not restricted to any actual act, but encompassing the ability, the potency, the capacity.
Any failure at the ability to "do" will render the quality omnipotence invalid. The example puts to task those thoughts, that god can do the CREATING and the LIFTING. And that proves that there is no omnipotence as such. — god must be atheist
you realize that [the voluntarist] would merely assert that God is not subordinate to logical cohesiveness — Questio
I find no unintelligibility about "god is capable of creating a stone he can't lift" if it comes to his power of creation. I find no unintelligibility about "God is capable of lifting a stone he had created" if it comes to his power of lifting.
It is not unintelligible to create a self-contradiction with the two. If twelve-year-olds are completely capable of understanding the proposition and seeing that it leads to a self-contradiction, then it is not impossible to expect normal adults to see the same thing.
I think you are hiding behind a rhetoric of devout god-worshippers, who can't admit that there is no such thing as irrefutable contradiction in the scriptures. — god must be atheist
I find no unintelligibility about "god is capable of creating a stone he can't lift" if it comes to his power of creation. — god must be atheist
I find no unintelligibility about "God is capable of lifting a stone he had created" if it comes to his power of lifting. — god must be atheist
If twelve-year-olds are completely capable of understanding the proposition and seeing that it leads to a self-contradiction, then it is not impossible to expect normal adults to see the same thing. — god must be atheist
it is not logically possible for actus purus to be undermined in some capacity by what is a composite of potency and act. — Questio
I find no unintelligibility about "god is capable of creating a stone he can't lift" — god must be atheist
hiding behind a rhetoric of devout god-worshippers, who can't admit that there is no such thing as irrefutable contradiction in the scriptures. — god must be atheist
Nor can God will that a four sided triangle exist, or that the internal angles of a triangle be any more or less than 180 degrees in Euclidean space. — Questio
This is getting tedious now. — Bartricks
To be honest, I don't know what you mean here and I've been charitable in assuming you mean that there is something incoherent in using reason to establish the existence of a being who can flout reason. — Bartricks
If that's not what you are trying to say, then why not just lay it out as a deductively valid argument? — Bartricks
Forget God and focus on me. I am sat at a computer. I want you to believe this — Bartricks
I am telling you that it is the case. Because of this you have reason to believe I am sat at a computer. But I can lie. I can bid you believe things about me that are not true. Does that mean you no longer have reason to think I am sat at a computer? No. You still have reason to believe I am sat at a computer. — Bartricks
Does the fact he's told us that true propositions are not false at the same time give us reason to believe that true propositions are not false at the same time? Yes. — Bartricks
A proposition - including a proposition about an imperative of Reason - does not 'have' to be true to be true. It just has to be true. — Bartricks
If you want to find out about Reason, consult your reason. And if you do that, you'll see that your reason tells you that Reason is a mind who can do anything. — Bartricks
You think that's not possible, right - that it is not possible for our reason to tell us about the existence of a being who is not bound by reason? — Bartricks
Well, a) I've demonstrated that it is possible by actually doing it — Bartricks
b) that's as silly as thinking that words can only tell you about words. — Bartricks
Our reason is a faculty. It brings us an awareness of the imperatives and other norms of Reason. That is, it gives us an awareness of what Reason - which my argument demonstrates to be God - wants us to do and believe. But that does not mean that Reason himself is bound by what he wants us to do and believe. And that itself is something our reason reveals to us (that is, our reason reveals to us that Reason is not bound by what he tells us). As I said, it is the same as fallaciously inferring that what we can see by sight is thereby limited by our sight, as if our sight determines what's there. — Bartricks
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
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? — Questio
So, as far as I can tell, all you're doing is insisting in one way and another that our reason is incapable of bringing us an awareness of a being who has power over reason — Bartricks
Again, you just keep begging the question. — Bartricks
I can discover by reason - as can anyone who exercises it as carefully and diligently as I do - that God exists — Bartricks
So, God could do anything - he could make 2 + 2 = 7, hell he could make 2 + 2 = a giraffe — Bartricks
But has he? No. How do I know? My reason tells me 2 + 2 = 4. It tells me it 'must'. — Bartricks
How? Here's my argument again:
1. If the imperatives of Reason are the imperatives a mind is issuing, then that mind is not bound by those imperatives
2. The imperatives of Reason are the imperatives a mind is issuing (see my proof of God for that).
3. Therefore, the mind whose imperatives are the imperatives of Reason - God - is not bound by those imperatives. — Bartricks
Therefore, there is a mind whose laws are the laws of Reason
— Bartricks
Exactly right, except you make a nonsequiter and follow by saying "therefore this mind or being may overthrow the object of his mind". Indeed, its ridiculous to make this jump without an extra premise. Indeed, even if you did, as I hope you have seen by now, theres no way such a conclusion is tenable, as it overthrows your premises of premises: that reason leads necessarily to truth.
Also, in case your wondering how on Earth I can't make the easy jump from "reason in the mind of God" to "thus he may overthrow it" I present you oncemore with Thomism and the gospel, along with ancient and medieval philosophy which recognized the flaws in your proposal and instead recognized God not as above reason, but instead as the logos; reason itself. — Questio
I could be in Paris. I mean, it is metaphysically possible. By your logic that means I can't know that I'm not. But I do, yes? I know that I'm not in Paris. — Bartricks
Why are you cutting and pasting an earlier post? — EricH
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. As I said earlier I do not have the time / energy to do yet another back & forth, so if you choose to reply I apologize in advance for not replying back. — EricH
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." — Bartricks
Thank goodness someone else has joined this conversation who understands this distinction! I tried to venture it earlier in the thread, which of course was brushed aside peremptorily. I’m not an expert in the matter, but I believe it’s a fundamental distinction and you’ve made a much better case for it than I was able to do. Suffice to say, I’m more persuaded by the Thomist philosophy than that of the Nominalists. — Wayfarer
Questio You provide no evidence that I am begging the question and appeal not to arguments, but authority figures. — Bartricks
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 supports the theisis that reason can reveal any truth if reality maybe unintelligible and thus "outside" the scope of reason? — Questio
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. — Bartricks
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 — Bartricks
So, again, in reality no true proposition is also false. You're not more confident about that than I. — Bartricks
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. — Bartricks
But denying that the law of non-contradiction is a necessary truth is not the same as denying that it is true, yes? — Bartricks
I am begging no questions. — Bartricks
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? — Bartricks
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. — Bartricks
I can discover by reason - as can anyone who exercises it as carefully and diligently as I do - — Bartricks
It is also not open to reasonable doubt that there are laws of Reason. — Bartricks
Therefore, there is a mind whose laws are the laws of Reason — Bartricks
I think St Anselm and I would get along like a house on fire. — Bartricks
He'd bloody love my proof of God. I mean, it's better than his, isn't it? — Bartricks
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. — Bartricks
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
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
It most certainly does mean that he is limited by something above him. — Bartricks
you think he can't will that a four sided triangle exist. Even I can do that!! — Bartricks
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
And what does "God only acts in accordance with his intellect" mean if not "God does what he does"? — Bartricks
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
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
It was a pleasure to read. In its own terms, the logic seems irrefutable:
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?Yet I disagree, because the omnibenevolence of God is not considered.
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