timberlandko wrote:Straw man, rl, you present sophistry - and a hint of ad hominem to go along with it, seasoned with a touch of argumentum ad absurdam; the hallmark of failed argument. Your defense just ain't there. Misdirection ain't gonna save you; you're busted, and you did it to yourself.
Cool pic. And some Latin to go with it, nice touch.
Too bad you can't substantiate your claims by citing what contradiction you claim I posted, or anything resembling the argument re: extinction that you are sure MUST be my position (but you just can't seem to find that quote..........)
The cites are there, rl, quoted from your own postings, whether you recognize and/or acknowlege them or not.
In relation to your proposition...
timberlandko wrote:Now, I submit once more, by what rationale might an omnipotent, perfect creator provide the means for the extinction of species? If it was good enough for an omnipotent, perfect creator to create, then, by logic and objective critical thought, there should be neither reason nor mechanism for its extinction.
...you have quoted nothing of mine that would indicate that I have agreed with the Calvinist presupposition contained therein.
(The attribute of omnipotence is not a Calvinist-only belief. Did you think it was? Nearly any Christian school of thought would maintain God's omnipotence. )
Perhaps you do not understand why your presupposition is Calvinist.
Either you fail or refuse to recognize that you have sunk your own boat ... neither Calvin nor any other religionist considered. Your persistent straw man attempt to drag some one or another religionist into or out of the discussion is wholly irrelevant to the logically self cancelling absurdity you presented - the inherently conditional absolute you set forward - and to the purely sophistic rationalizations and equivocations by which you seek to defend your patently unvalidatable position.
timberlandko wrote:. . . An omnipotent god must be omnisicient, otherwise, that god would be not omnipotent. . .
BZZZT!
Omnipotence requires free will and allows for God's selective application of foreknowledge. This does not fit with the strict definition of omniscient. We could not posess free will without it.
Sophistry, neo - no such thing as a conditional absolute.
timberlandko wrote:Sophistry, neo - no such thing as a conditional absolute.
OK: When you apply the absolute term 'omnipotence', you must include the condition of free will. God's name Jehovah means 'he who causes to become'.
If God has free will, then he certainly must be allowed to selectively apply his ability to foreknow.
The problem with the term 'omniscient' is that it infers God to be incapable of something. The scriptures do not support such a proposition.
We could not have free will in ourselves if it were so.
Omnipotent, Yes.
Omniscient, Omnivorous, Omnibus, No.
In searching for Omens, we must resist the temptations of Om.
If we fail, an Ominous future awaits.
neologist wrote:The problem with the term 'omniscient' is that it infers God to be incapable of something.
Yes, incapable of ignorance.
neologist wrote:The scriptures do not support such a proposition.
So scripture tells you that God is capable of ignorance.
And this being that chooses its own ignorance in order to maintain its own free will, happens to also be omnipotent... that's just great.
rosborne979 wrote:neologist wrote:The problem with the term 'omniscient' is that it infers God to be incapable of something.
Yes, incapable of ignorance.
neologist wrote:The scriptures do not support such a proposition.
So scripture tells you that God is capable of ignorance.
And this being that chooses its own ignorance in order to maintain its own free will, happens to also be omnipotent... that's just great.
If you refrain from reading your daughter's diary, are you diminished in any way? . . . Or, elevated?
If God does exist, would you have him bound by necessity?
timberlandko wrote:...no such thing as a conditional absolute.
This seems to be the same thing that you cannot understand in our exchange, Timber.
My consistent position is that God is omnipotent. That means he CAN do whatever He wishes to do.
It does not mean that He MUST do whatever He has the ability to do.
It also does not mean that if something occurs, He must have done it.
No, by strong hempen rope. Necessity frays under the pressure of mothering invention, sonata, and canon.
As defined by its scriptures, the god of the Abrahamic mythopaeia is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and - in particular - perfect. Perfect is another of those absolutes, subject to no qualifier or limitation. Perfection entails completion, lack of any imperfection, without want, flaw, need, error, or other striicture or limitation. Now, either the god of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia is perfect, or not. If perfect, then, given the attributes inherent to perfection, such a being would have no want, need, or cause to create anything (let alone anything that would go extinct or otherwise cease to be a functioning component of creation). Whether religionists care to recognize or acknowledge that or not, that is plain, simple, irrefutable logical necessity; not one iota may be changed, limited, enhanced, or otherwise altered without invalidating the entire proposition.
Now, either the god of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia is imperfect, thus invalidating the entire proposition embodied within the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, or the Ambrahamic Mythopaeia is foundationally invalid, thus invalid. Either way, from a dispassionate, purely logical perspective, it doesn't look good for the god of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia; the proposition does not stand to logic.
Of course, that's precisely why humankind came up with theology. That too precisely is why faith cannot be objectively differentiated from superstition; the two asolutely are equivalent. The only distinctions that may be offered are the entirely artificial constructs of social conventionand personal preference.
timberlandko wrote:As defined by its scriptures, the god of the Abrahamic mythopaeia is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and - in particular - perfect.
And where is God defined as omnipresent or omniscient? Any citation would suffice.
If this is your definition of God, I don't believe in him either.
This is really a gigantic issue.
timberlandko wrote:........ Perfect is another of those absolutes, subject to no qualifier or limitation. Perfection entails completion, lack of any imperfection, without want, flaw, need, error, or other striicture or limitation.......
Your definition. It remains to be seen whether this agrees with the definition of the Bible. If you are going to try to establish inconsistency or contradiction, then the Bible would have to define God as perfect and then show where He violates THAT DEFINITION, NOT YOURS.
timberlandko wrote:....... If perfect, then, given the attributes inherent to perfection, such a being would have no want, need, or cause to create anything (let alone anything that would go extinct or otherwise cease to be a functioning component of creation)......
This is simply an assumption without foundation on your part what God might want; as opposed to what He might need; or what He might cause ( 3 completely different propostions, which you seem to want to treat as synonomous --- an illogical undertaking if ever there was).
Timber wrote:
If perfect, then, given the attributes inherent to perfection, such a being would have no want, need, or cause to create anything
Neat. I've never seen anyone but myself use this particular argument. I suppose it is just an inevitable logical conclusion if you follow it far enough.
rl wrote:
This is simply an assumption without foundation on your part what God might want; as opposed to what He might need; or what He might cause ( 3 completely different propostions, which you seem to want to treat as synonomous --- an illogical undertaking if ever there was).
The point you are completely missing/ignoring is that a
perfect being would have no
desire. It is already perfect, any change would indicate a move towards imperfection. It would not
create, as that too would be a move towards a change of state, and hence imperfection.
Doktor S wrote:Timber wrote:
If perfect, then, given the attributes inherent to perfection, such a being would have no want, need, or cause to create anything
Neat. I've never seen anyone but myself use this particular argument. I suppose it is just an inevitable logical conclusion if you follow it far enough.
rl wrote:
This is simply an assumption without foundation on your part what God might want; as opposed to what He might need; or what He might cause ( 3 completely different propostions, which you seem to want to treat as synonomous --- an illogical undertaking if ever there was).
The point you are completely missing/ignoring is that a
perfect being would have no
desire. It is already perfect, any change would indicate a move towards imperfection. It would not
create, as that too would be a move towards a change of state, and hence imperfection.
So God doesn't need us. Whoever said he did?
I didn't need to have kids and sometimes they are a chore. But I think I'll keep them.
real life wrote:timberlandko wrote:........ Perfect is another of those absolutes, subject to no qualifier or limitation. Perfection entails completion, lack of any imperfection, without want, flaw, need, error, or other striicture or limitation.......
Your definition. It remains to be seen whether this agrees with the definition of the Bible. If you are going to try to establish inconsistency or contradiction, then the Bible would have to define God as perfect and then show where He violates THAT DEFINITION, NOT YOURS.
Ain't my definition, its the definition.
rl wrote:timberlandko wrote:....... If perfect, then, given the attributes inherent to perfection, such a being would have no want, need, or cause to create anything (let alone anything that would go extinct or otherwise cease to be a functioning component of creation)......
This is simply an assumption without foundation on your part what God might want; as opposed to what He might need; or what He might cause ( 3 completely different propostions, which you seem to want to treat as synonomous --- an illogical undertaking if ever there was).
Read the definition of perfect again.
Your waging the war with word salad, timber.
Food fight!
Food fight!
Doktor S wrote:Timber wrote:
If perfect, then, given the attributes inherent to perfection, such a being would have no want, need, or cause to create anything
Neat. I've never seen anyone but myself use this particular argument. I suppose it is just an inevitable logical conclusion if you follow it far enough.
rl wrote:
This is simply an assumption without foundation on your part what God might want; as opposed to what He might need; or what He might cause ( 3 completely different propostions, which you seem to want to treat as synonomous --- an illogical undertaking if ever there was).
The point you are completely missing/ignoring is that a
perfect being would have no
desire. It is already perfect, any change would indicate a move towards imperfection. It would not
create, as that too would be a move towards a change of state, and hence imperfection.
You are assuming that a perfect being (according to your definition of perfect ) would not want to do anything. Why do you assume that a perfect being would be completely passive, and not want to do anything?
Your error is the same as Timber's.
You want to shoehorn your definition of perfect into the definition of the God of the Bible, and then claim that the God of the Bible could not logically exist because He doesn't fit the definition you've crammed in there.
Yours is a circular argument.
