Gibberish of the day!

[tzor]

I'm not sure if I'd say mormons are christians

Just out of curiosity, why not?

You get to be answered wih a question: There are Hindus who regularly come to the relics of Saint Thomas for prayer. Jesus is amongst their gods. Do you believe that these Hindus are Christians?

-Username17

And I will answer with scripture (just to annoy everyone else).

At that time, John said to Jesus,
"Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name,
and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us."
Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him.
There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name
who can at the same time speak ill of me.
For whoever is not against us is for us.
Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink
because you belong to Christ,
amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

I guess that means, Frank, your chances of performing mighty needs in His name are at the present, nill.

[RandomCasualty2]

The burden of proof is to prove that god exists, not that he doesn't exist. I mean otherwise you can make all kinds of ludicrous irrational claims that dictate how you live, and say "prove me wrong!"

If there's no proof that God exists, then the belief in God is completely irrational, the same as those guys wearing tin foil hats. Because if you can believe in God with absolutely no proof, you're just as correct believing that invisible alien warlords are spying on you with secret undetectable hypertech sensing devices. It also means that it might be the Greek Pantheon instead of the Christian one, because there's no proof for either.

[violence in the media]

And I will answer with scripture (just to annoy everyone else).

At that time, John said to Jesus,
"Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name,
and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us."
Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him.
There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name
who can at the same time speak ill of me.
For whoever is not against us is for us.
Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink
because you belong to Christ,
amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

Strangely enough, your quote doesn't answer the question at hand. It's rather lacking on any speech towards the inherent violation of the commandments involved in venerating Jesus as one god among many.

[Kaelik]

No it has everything to do with observable effects. It all has to do with knowing what to look for. Simply claiming “I can’t see it” is no proof because you first need to know what it is, exactly, you are looking for. Given the general tendency to see what we want to see, this task is difficult at best. This doesn’t have to apply to God; people are still in disagreement about the effects of Keynesian economic principles on the Great Depression.

Which is why you'll notice that I keep talking about first determining what the implications of the existence of any such being (which just to be clear, being does not mean existing, that would be stupid) would be. And then, based on that knowledge, whether or not there is evidence for that being.

It's not "I can't see it."

It's "What should I see, given X?"

Followed by "Do I see those things?"

The second question can only be asked after the first is answered. Which is why I can't disprove native's conception of god until after I know what it fucking is.

Cause currently his conception of good is "Something that 100% exists, and has qualities that I won't describe."

But is explicitly not, any thing that has ever been called god or worshiped or described or mentioned or thought about by any human being ever.

[mean_liar]

I think the quoted passage is summed up as: "who cares, do good things".

So, are these Hindus then Christians? The answer: who cares, do good things.

[tzor]

The burden of proof is to prove that god exists, not that he doesn't exist. I mean otherwise you can make all kinds of ludicrous irrational claims that dictate how you live, and say "prove me wrong!"

The burden of proof depends on the statement being made and its absolute nature. For the person who says “I know that God exists,” the burden of proof is on him to back up that statement. For the person who says “I know that God doesn’t exist,” the burden of proof is on him to back up that statement. For the person who says “I cannot prove that God exists and I cannot prove that God does not exist but I have personally decided that …” then the burden of proof is not necessary.

This is, generally speaking, where most people fall into; either weak atheism or moderate theism. The notion that if there is no proof the notion is irrational is in and of itself irrational. While the notion of Reductio ad absurdum sounds nice and Reductio ad ridiculum is a sure fire win at parties and gaming forums, the fact is that many people have strong opinions on things that are not logically proved one way or the other. To suggest that such people can be compared to conspiracy theorists is absurd or outright ridiculous.

Some people believe in capitalism, others in socialism and neither of them are in the tin foil hat category. They cannot “prove” but based on the evidence they can reasonably come to their own reasonable conclusions.

[RobbyPants]

The burden of proof is to prove that god exists, not that he doesn't exist. I mean otherwise you can make all kinds of ludicrous irrational claims that dictate how you live, and say "prove me wrong!"

The burden of proof depends on the statement being made and its absolute nature. For the person who says “I know that God exists,” the burden of proof is on him to back up that statement. For the person who says “I know that God doesn’t exist,” the burden of proof is on him to back up that statement. For the person who says “I cannot prove that God exists and I cannot prove that God does not exist but I have personally decided that …” then the burden of proof is not necessary.

I guess this is how I feel. Trying to prove either side is pointless. I don't think anyone ever takes such proofs seriously anyway.

If someone is posting here claiming God exists, then they do have the burden of proof. If they aren't trying to prove it, then they have nothing to prove.

[tzor]

Which is why you'll notice that I keep talking about first determining what the implications of the existence of any such being (which just to be clear, being does not mean existing, that would be stupid) would be. And then, based on that knowledge, whether or not there is evidence for that being.

But then again, that pre-supposes you have a concrete definition to being with. When you only have a vague notion, any attempt at defining a concrete definition is an attempt at straw man creation; the burning of which proves nothing.

Thus it is impossible to prove the non existence of the vagueness of such a being. The best that can be done is to insist that there is insufficient proof to maintain the existence of the vagueness of such a being.

For example: is there life outside the solar system? Indeed it is impossible to prove this argument is true and equally impossible to prove this argument is false. Given the vagueness of the definition of “life” it may even be impossible to construct a single observation that could prove the answer one way or the other.

[NativeJovian]

Those don't mean anything, and the part where you explicitly avoid answering a single clarification I specifically asked for is fucking bullshit and the fact that so far the only definition you have provided for god is:

"something that exists and is glagagle and herefuaf"

So, apparently, you don't speak fucking English, because you don't know what "omnipotent" or "omniscient" means, even after I told you what they mean. I can't help you with that.

The statement 'I have evidence.' and 'they do not.' were too separate statements.

I haven't seen any of your evidence yet. (Ironically, by your own argument, I should therefore assume that it doesn't exist.)

Depends on the fucking god.

Pick one, since you don't seem to like my definition. Define your own god, then disprove it. Seriously, I can't give you the benefit of the doubt any more than that.

1) No, it's not a part of philosophy, it's a part of theology,

Shockingly, philosophy and religion are interconnected. There's a whole field called "philosophy of religion". There's no sharp uncrossable dividing line between the two.

that thing where you start by assuming total crazy bullshit is true.

I'm not assuming anything. In case you didn't realize, I don't believe in God. I'm presenting a case where "God is omnipotent and omniscient", "God loves everyone and wants us to be happy", and "evil exists" can all be true. This case cannot be disproven. You cannot prove that this is not the best of all possible worlds. That doesn't mean that you have to believe that it is, but it means that you can't show with certainty (either logically or empirically) that it's not.

2) Your theodicity is laughable, and already countered in this fucking thread.

Really? Link me to the post, then, because I must have missed it.

3) Free will has shit all to do with the existence of suffering before humans even existed.

Who ever said that God gave a shit about animals or plants or other things-that-aren't-human? Isn't there a line in the bible about man having domination over all the beasts of the earth and birds of the sky and fish of the sea?

Not that you can even make a compelling argument for free will.

Hey look! A valid criticism! Wow, I didn't think you had it in you.

No, I can't prove that we have free will. But you can't prove that we don't, either. Which brings is back to the agnostic thing, doesn't it?

1) See, I can think of an absolutely 100% better world right now.

Congratulations. I can think of a unicorn riding a tricycle through space right now, but that doesn't mean that it's possible, or that it's a better world than the one we live in, despite how awesome I think tricycling space-unicorns are.

If God is capable of doing anything and everything, perceiving everything at once, including everything that follows from everything we do and is infinitely benevolent then suffering can not exist. Since suffering exists one or more of these traits must not be present (or God does not exist, that works too).

The problem of evil does not disprove God's existence. Seriously, I just covered that. Go back and reread the bit at the end of my last post.

Again, sort of. Believing in something without even the slightest shred of evidence is not a rational act, is it?

Nope! But I never said faith was rational, either.

All you are experiencing is yourself, or rather, electrical currents in your brain (if brains exist at all). You can't know whether you are hallucinating, dreaming or are actually hooked up to the matrix.

If we're going to bring Descartes into this, then you can't talk about the problem of evil or anything empirical, because we can't even be sure of anything but "I think therefore I am". I'm taking it as a given that the things I can experience with my senses are real. Because otherwise you can't learn anything, ever.

Omnipotence. Does not compute.

See point 3).

Omnipotence. God could totally make that perfect reality have existed from the start of time.

Maybe he has. See point 1).

In other words, Gods is willing to see innocents (say, a baby) suffer because non-innocents (say, Mao) should be free to be assholes?

Yes. An action that is not free has no moral value. It's not considered a virtue to obey the laws of physics, because we can't not do that. If we didn't have free will, then good and evil would not exist. Presumably God thinks that humanity does enough good to justify the evil that we do.

God is actually totally fine with me murdering and raping my way across the country, leaving untold suffering in my wake, as long as I really regret it afterward?

No. He was pretty explicit that raping and murdering and whatnot is not cool and you shouldn't do it. However, if you do do it, and you do legitimately repent afterward, then he's not going to hold it against you.

Mind you, he is omniscient, so he can see what will happen. That is, in one word, evil.

Which is more evil: forgiving someone for something they are genuinely sorry for, or holding someone to a literally impossible standard of behavior? Part of the New Testament talks about the reason why you need to get right with God via Jesus is because no one (except God, naturally) is perfect, and therefore everyone sins. And any sin is a no-go for a perfect being. Which is why he forgives people instead of being a dick about it.

Why is it a choice between good and evil then? Why isn't there a third option? I want to be a fnord person but God took the option away by not creating fnord actions for me to take.

You can certainly be things other than "good" or "evil" (seriously, we've got a whole bunch of adjectives to describe people and/or their actions with). Hell, if you want to invent a definition for fnord, and then be fnord, go right ahead. God won't stop you.

Assuming I take that a a given, why didn't God create a consistent reality that sucks less?

Again, maybe he did (see point 1), or maybe we fucked it up (see point 3).

A being with free will as created by said God according to you.

Good answer! I agree with you that questioning God is certainly a good thing (I wouldn't be agnostic otherwise, obviously). But the point of that comment was to say that we, as non-omniscient beings, cannot state with certainty that this isn't the best of all worlds. You can certainly believe that it's not, but you can't prove that it isn't, which is sufficient to support the agnostic position of uncertainty, but not enough to support the atheist position of certainty that God doesn't exist.

Not having evidence that something is true is not the same thing as having evidence that something is not true. Lack of evidence that God exists is not evidence that God does not exist.

I'm going to put this in incredibly simple terms, just to be clear.

If you agree with the above statement you are, all at the same time, stupid, lying and intellectually dishonest.

You are stupid and you should feel bad for even thinking that. Let's use an example that's popped up repeatedly in this thread. I have no evidence that what my senses tell me are real. It could be a dream/hallucination/Cartesian Demon/The Matrix/whatever. Therefore, because I have no evidence that what I'm experiencing is real, they must not be real! Reality is a lie and I'm just a brain in a jar, dreaming of being a guy arguing philosophy on the internet!

But wait, the opposite argument works too. I have no evidence to prove that my senses are false. No evidence exists to prove that the reality I perceive is actually a dream/hallucination/Cartesian Demon/The Matrix/whatever. Therefore, because I have no evidence that what I'm experiencing is false, they must not be false! Whew! Reality exists again and I can rest assured that everything is as it seems.

Why yes, I just came to two exactly opposite conclusions using the same logic. Why do you ask?

The burden of proof is to prove that god exists, not that he doesn't exist.

Only if you're interested in saying that "everyone who doesn't believe in God is a nutcase". Which, as far as I'm aware, isn't a position that religious people tend to take. (They say "you're going to hell" or something to that effect instead of "you're a nutcase", but they're not saying you're irrational for not believing. They're just saying you'll be fucked. Which, if their belief in God is correct, you are.)

On the other hand, atheists regularly say that everyone who does believe in God is a nutcase. Which is how this whole thing got started: you cannot prove that God doesn't exist any more than you can prove that God does exist. It's equally irrational to believe either. Both beliefs require faith, not reason.

[Maj]

Really, discussing it scientifically is meaningless.

Discussing anything that cannot yet be measured is scientifically meaningless. As much as I might believe in the existence of aliens and telepathy, science doesn't have a detectometre and so those subjects remain the subject of fiction. Until there's a theometre, science will not care about the question of gods. And really, that's just as well.

You get to be answered wih a question: There are Hindus who regularly come to the relics of Saint Thomas for prayer. Jesus is amongst their gods. Do you believe that these Hindus are Christians?

I didn't ask you anything, Frank. I wasn't planning on engaging in a discussion on the legitimacy of Mormons as Christians - I, quite frankly, don't care what others think. But I do care why others think, and so I wanted a clarification of Murtak's opinion.

If there's no proof that God exists, then the belief in God is completely irrational

I think many people would respond to that by saying that they've proven the issue to themselves. Sort of like proving that pink is their favorite color or believing that becoming a lawyer will net you a large income. It may not make sense to you, it may not be a repeatable, measurable phenomenon, but then, it doesn't have to be.

[RandomCasualty2]

On the other hand, atheists regularly say that everyone who does believe in God is a nutcase. Which is how this whole thing got started: you cannot prove that God doesn't exist any more than you can prove that God does exist. It's equally irrational to believe either. Both beliefs require faith, not reason.

No, it's not equally irrational, because religion requires that you take time out of your day to do shit, for no reason that's remotely provable. It's like believing that the government can control your thoughts with invisible mind control rays unless you go through the trouble of putting on tin foil hats.

If you accept religion to be not nutcases, then those guys aren't nutcases either. Religion is nothing more than mass delusion. Seriously if nobody believed in religion, and some guy came in claiming there was this all powerful being that saw every action he did and would damn him to an eternity of hell if he did things that it didn't approve of, we'd say he had paranoid delusions.

I think many people would respond to that by saying that they've proven the issue to themselves. Sort of like proving that pink is their favorite color or believing that becoming a lawyer will net you a large income. It may not make sense to you, it may not be a repeatable, measurable phenomenon, but then, it doesn't have to be.

Only, they really haven't. They've been brainwashed into believing in God, because it's how they were raised. They don't really have any proof other than "My parents said this fairy tale was real."

They're not believing it based on evidence, they're just believing it because a lot of other people said it was true.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Only if you're interested in saying that "everyone who doesn't believe in God is a nutcase". Which, as far as I'm aware, isn't a position that religious people tend to take. (They say "you're going to hell" or something to that effect instead of "you're a nutcase", but they're not saying you're irrational for not believing. They're just saying you'll be fucked. Which, if their belief in God is correct, you are.)

On the other hand, atheists regularly say that everyone who does believe in God is a nutcase. Which is how this whole thing got started: you cannot prove that God doesn't exist any more than you can prove that God does exist. It's equally irrational to believe either. Both beliefs require faith, not reason.

Oh perhaps atheists say 'God does not exist' in the same sense that I say 'I don't have a cat'. It's possible that, even as I type this, I do have a cat and simply don't know it. Maybe it's been very good at hiding. Maybe it was just gifted to me without my knowledge. If I was asked "do you have a cat?", it would be silly of me to say "I don't know". That's simply not the way English is used. If someone wearing a suit came up to me on the street and told be that all this time I've had a cat and simply didn't know it, I hope that you can understand my disbelief.

So if you ask an atheist if God exists, she is perfectly justified in saying "No"--Just like she is perfectly justified in saying that there isn't a second secret president of the United States or an international Zionist over-government. Or that she doesn't have a cat.

---

On the other hand (this isn't direct at you, Jovian), things can be proved via inference. Hence the phrase "logical inference". It's just another method of proof, and is not the same thing as Bayesian inference.

[Crissa]

I think atheists say religious people are nutcases in the same way you might say someone acting upon instructions from an invisible friend is a nutcase.

-Crissa

[Murtak]

So, apparently, you don't speak fucking English, because you don't know what "omnipotent" or "omniscient" means, even after I told you what they mean. I can't help you with that.

There are actually subtle differences in possible meanings of the word.

For example when you ask how strong an omnipotent being is (or how strong he can make himself) it may be infinitely strong or arbitrarily strong. In most cases this does not matter, but for some it does.

Similarly omniscience may mean the being can perceive anything or it may mean it can perceive everything. Again, a subtle difference. Also it may perceive what is happening or it may additionally be aware of the consequences of what is happening.

[Neeeek]

Not having evidence that something is true is not the same thing as having evidence that something is not true. Lack of evidence that God exists is not evidence that God does not exist.

I'm going to put this in incredibly simple terms, just to be clear.

If you agree with the above statement you are, all at the same time, stupid, lying and intellectually dishonest.

You are stupid and you should feel bad for even thinking that. Let's use an example that's popped up repeatedly in this thread. I have no evidence that what my senses tell me are real. It could be a dream/hallucination/Cartesian Demon/The Matrix/whatever. Therefore, because I have no evidence that what I'm experiencing is real, they must not be real! Reality is a lie and I'm just a brain in a jar, dreaming of being a guy arguing philosophy on the internet!

But wait, the opposite argument works too. I have no evidence to prove that my senses are false. No evidence exists to prove that the reality I perceive is actually a dream/hallucination/Cartesian Demon/The Matrix/whatever. Therefore, because I have no evidence that what I'm experiencing is false, they must not be false! Whew! Reality exists again and I can rest assured that everything is as it seems.

Why yes, I just came to two exactly opposite conclusions using the same logic. Why do you ask?

Because you are a stupid, intellectually dishonest liar.

See, you don't actually believe the first one. No one does. They don't act like they do, they don't live their lives like that's a real possibility. Decartes was, in many ways, a completely idiot. The world you perceive is real, if for no other reason than there is no evidence than it isn't.

If theists want to have "faith" and believe in things that are utterly ridiculous, then more power to them. I just ask they admit what they are doing is utterly ridiculous.

[Heath Robinson]

Jovian,

"All-powerful" and "all-knowing" are not tightly specified enough. They are trying to get you to be very specific so that you cannot use loose definitions to endlessly evade lines of reasoning that you do not like. More to the point, your inability to define the thing you are talking about is insulting because it implies that you have not thought your argument through - otherwise it would be easy to specify your hypothetical entity in a sentence and we could move the fuck on, instead of this raging assholishness over whether or not your definition is complete enough.

Would you agree when we say that you refer to an agent that has the capacity to enact any internally consistent change in the state of the universe with perfect precision whilst simultaneously being aware of everything in the universe, including events in the past and the future?

[NativeJovian]

No, it's not equally irrational, because religion requires that you take time out of your day to do shit

"Believing in God" and "being religious" aren't synonymous. Believing that an omnipotent, omniscient being exists but doesn't give a shit about us and so worshiping it is pointless is a perfectly legitimate position. I'm in no way defending organized religion.

Oh perhaps atheists say 'God does not exist' in the same sense that I say 'I don't have a cat'.

Except that "having a cat" is an empirically observable phenomenon, and "God existing" isn't.

If atheism's position was "there may be a God, but I don't think there is" then they'd actually be agnostics. (Or "weak atheists" instead of "strong atheists" if you prefer that terminology.) I'm not arguing against the belief that God doesn't exist. I'm arguing against the idea that you can prove it.

There are actually subtle differences in possible meanings of the word.

I know, but until Kaelik actually says what distinctions he wants me to make, I can't help him. I'm not going to run down every single possible interpretation of the words "omnipotent" or "omniscient" for his benefit -- if he wants to make an argument based on those definitions, then he can make it himself. That's why I invited him to define them for us.

If he wants to have a conversation about "can God make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it" or "if God knows everything, does he know our future, and doesn't that mean we have no free will?" then he can bring up those questions and we'll discuss it.

See, you don't actually believe the first one. No one does. They don't act like they do, they don't live their lives like that's a real possibility.

You mean, they have faith that their perceptions are real, in lieu of evidence proving it? How so very silly of them.

They are trying to get you to be very specific so that you cannot use loose definitions to endlessly evade lines of reasoning that you do not like.

He's the one professing to have evidence that God doesn't exist. If he has that evidence, then he presumably knows what he means by "God". I'm willing to use his definition for the sake of argument. Why do I need to spell out something that he apparently already knows?

Do you not see the intellectual dishonesty (to borrow Neeeek's favorite phrase) in saying "I have evidence that proves God doesn't exist!" and then having someone ask you to show it, only to reply "Well, it depends on what you mean by God".

If you claim to have evidence that disproves God, then you must already have a definition of God. So you tell me what you mean by "God", and then tell me why he can't exist. I might not like what you mean by "God" (if you do something retarded like say "God is defined as a being that doesn't exist, and therefore, by definition, doesn't exist"), but I promise that if I don't I'll tell you why not. Then we can go from there.

Would you agree when we say that you refer to an agent that has the capacity to enact any internally consistent change in the state of the universe with perfect precision whilst simultaneously being aware of everything in the universe, including events in the past and the future?

If that's the definition you want to use, go nuts.

[Orion]

Look, Jovian you name the God and I'll disprove it. There's no commonly agreed-on definition of "god" so I can't disprove "god" in the general case. Plus, people can always come up with a new definition of god, some of which might not be disprovable.

In fact, some people define "god" in such a way that a god actually does exist. We call them "Deists" "Monists" and ... hmm, there;s no good name for the third group. I'll just call them "Goodists" for now. Anyway those guys believe in gods that totally exist.

But apart form those three, I'd lay money down that any god you happen to trot out can be handily disproved.

[violence in the media]

If he wants to have a conversation about "can God make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it" or "if God knows everything, does he know our future, and doesn't that mean we have no free will?" then he can bring up those questions and we'll discuss it.

You motherfucker.

[NativeJovian]

Plus, people can always come up with a new definition of god, some of which might not be disprovable.

...which is what I've been saying the entire time. I've never said that every definition of God is undisprovable, but only that you can't completely disprove the existence of God. There's some combination of traits that could be legitimately called "God" that you can't prove doesn't exist. Since we don't know what God's exact traits are (if he exists at all), there's a possibility that God fits that undisprovable definition, and thus a possibility that he might exist.

The mere fact that you can't disprove the existence of every definition of God is my whole point.

[NativeJovian]

You motherfucker.

My bad; I must have missed that at the time because I was looking at other posts. There's a lot of material in this thread, after all.

The short version: God being omnipotent doesn't negate free will. It constrains our choices (we can't choose to ignore gravity and fly away, because that's not how reality works -- limits which God, with his omnipotence, presumably imposed upon the universe), but it doesn't make those choices for us. Though an omnipotent God could force our choices (and even leave us the illusion of free will while he did it), the mere fact that they're omnipotent doesn't mean that they are forcing our choices.

Being omniscient is trickier, but it depends on how you define free will. If you define free will as "the ability to do otherwise", then omniscience does preclude free will. If someone knows, unerringly, what you will do, then you can't do otherwise (because then they'd be wrong, and they're omniscient, so they can't be wrong). However, that confuses cause and effect. The knowledge is the effect of the choice, not the other way around. The knowledge exists because of the choice that was made; you could choose otherwise, and this would change the knowledge. This is why I don't like the commonly-used "ability to do otherwise" definition of free will. "Could have done otherwise if you had wanted to" is a better one. I choose to do X because I want to do X, and God knows that I will choose X, and God is omniscient, so I can't do other than X, because otherwise omniscient God would be wrong (which is impossible). However, if I wanted to do Y instead, I would have, and God would have known that I wanted to do Y instead, so he's still omniscient. I can do otherwise in that situation -- but only if I want to.

[TarkisFlux]

Plus, people can always come up with a new definition of god, some of which might not be disprovable.

...which is what I've been saying the entire time. I've never said that every definition of God is undisprovable, but only that you can't completely disprove the existence of God. There's some combination of traits that could be legitimately called "God" that you can't prove doesn't exist. Since we don't know what God's exact traits are (if he exists at all), there's a possibility that God fits that undisprovable definition, and thus a possibility that he might exist.

The mere fact that you can't disprove the existence of every definition of God is my whole point.

I don't think you'd be satisfied with the definitions of god left over, and you would have lost the argument in a very real sense while clinging to some semantic victory because some god can exist. For example, I could define god as the sum total of the universe (a realist interpretation on god being, by definition, the greatest thing that exists) and that would leave him omnipotent (anything that can be done it will do, is doing, has done, or has the capacity to do even if it never actually does happen) and omnipresent (obvious, as god becomes the actual limit of space) but not omniscient because there is no consciousness or will associated with it. You can't disprove that one, short of disproving reality in some bizarre sense, and given your other points I doubt it's one you'd like to hold up and wave around as a golden case of why you can't disprove all definitions of god. Boolean's full quote is offering to leave you only this sort of thing, and you're wrong if you think you get points for your side from it.

[Maj]

I don't think you'd be satisfied with the definitions of god left over, and you would have lost the argument in a very real sense while clinging to some semantic victory because some god can exist. For example, I could define god as the sum total of the universe (a realist interpretation on god being, by definition, the greatest thing that exists) and that would leave him omnipotent (anything that can be done it will do, is doing, has done, or has the capacity to do even if it never actually does happen) and omnipresent (obvious, as god becomes the actual limit of space) but not omniscient because there is no consciousness or will associated with it. You can't disprove that one, short of disproving reality in some bizarre sense, and given your other points I doubt it's one you'd like to hold up and wave around as a golden case of why you can't disprove all definitions of god. Boolean's full quote is offering to leave you only this sort of thing, and you're wrong if you think you get points for your side from it.

Can you explain how something with no consciousness can be omnipotent?

[Username17]

Can you explain how something with no consciousness can be omnipotent?

Analogy: Volcanoes have power. They don't care about anything.

The entire universe has literally all the power in the universe, which is one of the more limited but acceptable definitions of "omnipotent" - but the universe as a whole also does not care about anything. It's just like the volcano, but scaled up to the entire universe. On account of being the entire universe.

That's a thing that exists, and has all the power. Yet it is clearly unworthy of worship, which is pretty much what we get to any time we nail down a definition of gods that we cannot dismiss.

-Username17

[Maj]

Can you explain how something with no consciousness can be omnipotent?

Analogy: Volcanoes have power. They don't care about anything.

Ahh... Gotcha.

The entire universe has literally all the power in the universe, which is one of the more limited but acceptable definitions of "omnipotent" - but the universe as a whole also does not care about anything. It's just like the volcano, but scaled up to the entire universe. On account of being the entire universe.

I never would have associated the concept of omnipotence with a lack of consciousness. The idea that you have unlimited power but can't act on it is rather bizarre to me.

That's a thing that exists, and has all the power. Yet it is clearly unworthy of worship, which is pretty much what we get to any time we nail down a definition of gods that we cannot dismiss.

Before I was an active member of the Mormon church, and before I really got into the nitty-gritty of atheist/theist debate, that description of "God" (for lack of a better term) is pretty much exactly what I came up with. It's still the version I go with most of the time, too.

I guess it's just weird for me to see it come up here.