Neon Genesis Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 If the omnipotence paradox cannot be used to disprove the existence of God because it is an illogical argument, then why do Christians believe in miracles? Miracles like turning water into wine or being raised from the dead after being cruxificied are supernatural events which occur outside the natural laws of logic that God created. If one accepts that God can perform miracles, then they do in fact accept that illogical arguments can be applied to God because miracles are outside logic, thus doesn't the omnipotence paraox still stand? But if one doesn't believe that the omnipotence paradox can disprove the existence of God because they don't believe illogical arguments can be applied to God, then they must accept that miracles do not exist and the bible cannot be taken literally in any possible way because miracles by their very nature are illogical. To put it simply, you cannot use an illogical argument like miracles to prove God but then turn around and say that illogical arguments cannot disprove God. Furthermore, if the omnipotence paradox doesn't disprove the existence of God because it is an illogical argument, doesn't this mean that the laws of logic are more powerful than God because he is bounded by those laws of logic that he created? Therefore, shouldn't we be worshipping the laws of logic instead of God? And if God must follow the laws he created, then what gives God the right to take away the lives of any human he feels like, since he created the law that thou shalt not murder, and God must follow his own laws in order to disprove the omnipotence paradox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpcobe Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Your post leads me down this road: If manslaughter is essentially causing someone's death accidentally, and God created man without the appropriate "controls" to keep us from killing each other, then is God responsible for humanity's "manslaughter?" We, as humans, see that as a moral failure, do we not? Maybe my logic is wrong. Sorry for highjacking your thread. I thought it at least pertained to your topic there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Let n = any real number n / 0 = a solution does not exist But since miracles violate the natural order, there must not be a God. So God = a solution does not exist Therefore God = n / 0. Q.E.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 But since miracles violate the natural order, there must not be a God. I don't know...seems like a bit of a jump in logistics there...an absolute without having explored the options... From my understanding of a diest standpoint (I don't claim to be one, just have some moderate leanings in that direction), God has a total non-interference policy. Miracles not existing does not preclude the existence of (a) God... (just being picky ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Since God created logic, logic didn't exist before he created it, hence God is illogical... eh... Or maybe it should be alogical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I've never heard of the omnipotence paradox, but anyone who believes that water can be turned into wine or that zombies can come back to life and launch themselves out of our atmosphere is suffering from an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, and may be psychotic. My recommendation is that they should be immediately escorted to the nearest mental hospital and separated from the general population as they may pose a danger to themselves and others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 But since miracles violate the natural order, there must not be a God. I don't know...seems like a bit of a jump in logistics there...an absolute without having explored the options... From my understanding of a diest standpoint (I don't claim to be one, just have some moderate leanings in that direction), God has a total non-interference policy. Miracles not existing does not preclude the existence of (a) God... (just being picky ) True, I'll give you that. I was just being goofy. For me, I would likely say I am comfortably agnostic since I don't really care for Christianity anymore, or even know for sure whether or not I believe in the existance of a deity. The existence of God has never been conclusively proven and it appears to me that the only way God can be proven is through a total consensus. You could have X people on your side (which is all of humankind), but if 1 person disagrees with you, then that rigorous argument is discarded and it is left in demographic territory. If a miracle happened before my eyes, maybe I would be in shock and not know what to do after that. Maybe I would believe, maybe I wouldn't. My eternal soul, if there is one, is ultimately choice to do what I want with it. As for that proof, I wanted to recall Euler's slamming of Diderot: (a+b^n)/n = x, reply? Personally, I think both sides make up stuff as they go along to prove their cases, but what do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I hear people all the time cite things as "proof" that are totally illogical. Like "Since I started believing, my life is better yada yada". There are lots of examples where people believe with no basis at all in science or logic. Funny thing about proof though, the burden of proof relies on the asserter proving it, not the sceptic. In other words, you are not required to prove a negative. If I tell you there is a giant purple mouse/rabbit hybrid in my house, it means "I" need a photo or a corpse or something to prove it, it does not mean the sceptic needs to search for proof there can be no mouse/rabbit. Same holds true for a concept of god. It is NOT the job of the sceptic to prove it is not out there, it is the burden of the believer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I hear people all the time cite things as "proof" that are totally illogical. Like "Since I started believing, my life is better yada yada". There are lots of examples where people believe with no basis at all in science or logic. Funny thing about proof though, the burden of proof relies on the asserter proving it, not the sceptic. In other words, you are not required to prove a negative. If I tell you there is a giant purple mouse/rabbit hybrid in my house, it means "I" need a photo or a corpse or something to prove it, it does not mean the sceptic needs to search for proof there can be no mouse/rabbit. Same holds true for a concept of god. It is NOT the job of the sceptic to prove it is not out there, it is the burden of the believer. Michael, I have heard that from the other side. They claim that the skeptic has the burden of proof since they can prove the existence in many different ways (from using a holy tome to deriving a plethora of logical arguments). In face of these odds, how does one stay steadfast to their disbelief? I know there may be nothing there to defend (paradoxically, in the context of me thinking as write this post), but what does one do when confronted with this argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillian Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 But since miracles violate the natural order, there must not be a God. I don't know...seems like a bit of a jump in logistics there...an absolute without having explored the options... From my understanding of a diest standpoint (I don't claim to be one, just have some moderate leanings in that direction), God has a total non-interference policy. Miracles not existing does not preclude the existence of (a) God... (just being picky ) Here is another "take" I suppose on this. IF god allegedly has a non-interference policy, it would negate "gods plan", which as far as the bible is concerned is "proof" of his alleged "omni-all-ness".. He has interference therefore from day one, to fit in with his OWN plan, which would include his already pre-ordained miracles, right...hence not actually making them miracles per se, but just part of "the plan". Of course, I am going by the xian "god" book as reference here, but I would think that the "god" concept deists lend toward is actually based on in some way the creator god concept of judeo-christianity. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 If the omnipotence paradox cannot be used to disprove the existence of God because it is an illogical argument, then why do Christians believe in miracles? It's used by theologians (which can be xians of course) but then xians turn around and use omnipotence in a totally different way so it's really not the same thing. Omnipotence is being used differently by these two groups but the theologians want you to believe that their definition is the one and only definition and that everyone is somehow using it even when they clearly are not. So the god can only do what is possible. The miracles were done so they must have been possible. Other things might be possible but we don't know what they are. Paradoxes are impossible so they cannot be done. But paradoxes are only impossible to humans. Perhaps to this god the seemingly impossible is possible? Perhaps this god can rework things to make the impossible possible? The classic square triangle. I can't imagine what a square triangle would be...or could be. But I created neither the square nor the triangle. Humans labeled them but created neither. But because I cannot imagine the square triangle doesn't mean one could not leap into existence defying all human logic simply at the whim of this god. The logical end would be we would redefine what the label of triangle meant instead of saying that a god could not impose this object into our reality. But by imposing rigid standards it prevents a square triangle from existing in the first place. By imposing such standards we could have prevented all but equilateral triangles from existing. Sure they have three sides but they aren't equal. They aren't triangles. The god cannot create anything but equal sided triangles. The god cannot create this square triangle. Not to my knowledge but I'm not the god. I didn't create the other triangles. Had the god wanted triangles to have 13 sides they would have. "Tri" would have meant something different. It's just a label. Square triangles are shapes we just haven't encountered yet and if the god wants it to exist then it will exist and we will label it. If the god has to alter our reality so that the object can have the properties of both a square and a triangle simultaneously then who's to say the god cannot do this transparently while keeping all other aspects intact? We have things that appear as waves and particles simultaneously. Who's to say how/where we'll observe these square triangles? But of course these people want to hold one in their hand. They're dictating to the god and setting his boundaries. This poor god is never going to eat that burrito because it's so hot (or is it?). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 In my opinion, after reading that explanation by mwc, I have come to believe that I may understand the way the Christian apologist operates. The Christian apologist is a defense attorney, nothing more. All they do is invent tales of fantasy to fill up the holes in their Scripture so they can create this so-called "logical case" for the defense of their faith. First off, if their faith is inspired and inerrant, why did it fracture? Furthermore, despite the fractures and the claims of inspiration and inerrancy, why does the faith need to be defended? Granted, I am sure that non-believers use logical fallacies from time to time when constructing arguments against the faith, but it appears that they are fewer than what the Christian apologist is guilty of. Christianity has created more straw men and circular fallacies than fifty scarecrows tied to that many burning wheels whenever they develop, derive and formulate their explanations to dictate away the glaring holes in their literature. Now, from the obverse position, non-believers tend to be more critical, more rigorous, and more logical in their ruminations about Christianity, trying to find the magic bullet that will finally undermine it. Christians only need to create enough reasonable doubt to make the non-believer cast their critical eye someplace else. The faith easily appeals to the emotive aspects of the individual nature and they use certain bits of logic, science, written evidence and natural evidence to create an explanation as to why the world should have the Bible and Christ as their moral and lawful foundations, thereby creating the reasonable doubt necessary to make any soul falter. Defense attorneys can be crafty, persuasive argumentarians and they know when to appeal to the heart and to the mind. Human nature is easily malleable and humans reproduce like rats, which is likely why Christian apologists can still find work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrisonjj Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I hear people all the time cite things as "proof" that are totally illogical. Like "Since I started believing, my life is better yada yada". There are lots of examples where people believe with no basis at all in science or logic. Funny thing about proof though, the burden of proof relies on the asserter proving it, not the sceptic. In other words, you are not required to prove a negative. If I tell you there is a giant purple mouse/rabbit hybrid in my house, it means "I" need a photo or a corpse or something to prove it, it does not mean the sceptic needs to search for proof there can be no mouse/rabbit. Same holds true for a concept of god. It is NOT the job of the sceptic to prove it is not out there, it is the burden of the believer. Interesting observation. As a fervent believer for almost all my life, I never felt god's presence or answers to prayers. As a 3 year blaspheming athiest, I feel the same effects as when I was religious,,,,,,,NOTHING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrisonjj Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 But since miracles violate the natural order, there must not be a God. I don't know...seems like a bit of a jump in logistics there...an absolute without having explored the options... From my understanding of a diest standpoint (I don't claim to be one, just have some moderate leanings in that direction), God has a total non-interference policy. Miracles not existing does not preclude the existence of (a) God... (just being picky ) Here is another "take" I suppose on this. IF god allegedly has a non-interference policy, it would negate "gods plan", which as far as the bible is concerned is "proof" of his alleged "omni-all-ness".. He has interference therefore from day one, to fit in with his OWN plan, which would include his already pre-ordained miracles, right...hence not actually making them miracles per se, but just part of "the plan". Of course, I am going by the xian "god" book as reference here, but I would think that the "god" concept deists lend toward is actually based on in some way the creator god concept of judeo-christianity. Along those same lines, then our prayers (begging) is supposed to change god's plan (ohhhh since he's begging so much I'll cure his friend) the whole concept is fucking ridiculous. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Here's an argument I developed to prove my belief in God at one time. It's paltry, it's puny, it's piffle. If you look at it long enough, you can see the slick repackaging. Here is the argument... I believe in God because of numbers. I define the solitary unit. Abstractly, I create something from nothing. Numbers themselves are based on Zeno's paradox of infinite regression. Yes, you can say you get smaller and smaller but somehow the end point is reached. This idea may be rudimentary and even intellectually dishonest, but that is my unprovable belief. There's it is, tear it to shreds!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 At the level of the atom, everything but the elements loses it's identity. At sub-atomic levels, matter as we know it no longer exists. You can divide down to "nothing" in the material world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts