[mmmpie]

Right, so about a week ago I guess, I suggested that absence of evidence could under some circumstances be evidence of absence. I've thought about it a bit more and come up with a (somewhat rough) argument - it goes like this:

Define omnipotence to include only those things which are logically possible - this is the definition frequently put forth to get out of omnipotence paradoxes so it shouldn't be problematic. Further, define god as being omnipotent. In order to evade logical paradoxes about causality it would be necessary for god to be omnipresent also, otherwise there would be things which were both possible and impossible (this assumes that the internal workings of god are not constrained by relativity, which would be a whole other debate - given that god in the abrahamic tradition is often described as both within and without the universe I wouldn't have thought this was too objectionable). However, in order to perform any physical act god must have a material presence, therefore material evidence of god must be ubiquitous.

So omnipotent god ultimately implies ubiquitous material presence of god.

However, no ubiquitous material presence of god is observed. Therefore there is no omnipotent god.

[Zaki]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Right, so about a week ago I guess, I suggested that absence of evidence could under some circumstances be evidence of absence. I've thought about it a bit more and come up with a (somewhat rough) argument - it goes like this:

Define omnipotence to include only those things which are logically possible - this is the definition frequently put forth to get out of omnipotence paradoxes so it shouldn't be problematic. Further, define god as being omnipotent. In order to evade logical paradoxes about causality it would be necessary for god to be omnipresent also, otherwise there would be things which were both possible and impossible (this assumes that the internal workings of god are not constrained by relativity, which would be a whole other debate - given that god in the abrahamic tradition is often described as both within and without the universe I wouldn't have thought this was too objectionable). However, in order to perform any physical act god must have a material presence, therefore material evidence of god must be ubiquitous.

So omnipotent god ultimately implies ubiquitous material presence of god.

However, no ubiquitous material presence of god is observed. Therefore there is no omnipotent god.

Absurdity is utterly IMPOTENT! - and therefore can be NO PART WHATSOEVER of Omnipotence! Requiring absurdity of Omnipotence is simply clear evidence of poverty of intellect.

[mmmpie]

Does complete and utter nonsense gibberish count as spam, one wonders...

In other news, it occurs to me that in my last post I go straight to "in order to perform any physical act god must have a material presence" as an assertion. This however is entailed by the definition of omnipotence that I used, because otherwise any acts which god performs would be supernatural - i.e. they would not be permitted by the laws of physics. Although the motivation may be supernatural, the action itself must not be otherwise you entail logical paradoxes again - the breakdown of action and reaction springs immediately to mind. So there must be a physical presence of some kind through which god acts.

[Zaki]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Does complete and utter nonsense gibberish count as spam, one wonders...

In other news, it occurs to me that in my last post I go straight to "in order to perform any physical act god must have a material presence" as an assertion. This however is entailed by the definition of omnipotence that I used, because otherwise any acts which god performs would be supernatural - i.e. they would not be permitted by the laws of physics. Although the motivation may be supernatural, the action itself must not be otherwise you entail logical paradoxes again - the breakdown of action and reaction springs immediately to mind. So there must be a physical presence of some kind through which god acts.

Right! And how have you have actually tested for God's physical Presence? If you don't know how to test for It - PRECISELY - how did you manage to come to the conclusion that you haven't found It or that It doesn't Exist? Give me strength!

[Mannix99]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Define omnipotence to include only those things which are logically possible - this is the definition frequently put forth to get out of omnipotence paradoxes so it shouldn't be problematic.

Hi Mmmpie, please could you tell me or refer to one of your previous post to explain why would you include in the omnipotence only things that are logically possible. How do you define that propriety? Do you restrain this "logically possible" to our current knowledge of logic, to our Universe or do you refer to an absolute logic realm on which even God would have to obey?

(Original post by mmmpie)
In order to evade logical paradoxes about causality it would be necessary for god to be omnipresent

Sorry again if you have already explain this point somewhere else in this thread (I just don't want to go back to read more than 300 of pages of flameware and other interesting comments otherwise) but please could you elaborate here? Why an omnipotent God should be omnipresent?

[Bilco]

(Original post by Zaki)
Am I not allowed to mention it when subjected to namecalling now? Oh brother!

You accuse them of namecalling when they call you ignorant, yet you accuse me of the same thing.

[kmiab]

If we had an answer we wouldn't be having this discussion. However I personally don't believe in God. Im a physicist. Although I think that religion is a very powerful, beneficial "thing". Without it the world, and the human race, would be a very cold place. - But at least there would be no religion causing terrorism. I mean, islamic terrorists just give Islam a bad name - it's unfair.

[Mannix99]

@Kmiab: "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented." Voltaire.

[Zaki]

(Original post by Bilco)
You accuse them of namecalling when they call you ignorant, yet you accuse me of the same thing.

No. I accuse people of name-calling when they engage in name-calling and ignorance when they display lack of knowledge. That's all.

[Hylean]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Right, so about a week ago I guess, I suggested that absence of evidence could under some circumstances be evidence of absence. I've thought about it a bit more and come up with a (somewhat rough) argument - it goes like this:

Define omnipotence to include only those things which are logically possible - this is the definition frequently put forth to get out of omnipotence paradoxes so it shouldn't be problematic. Further, define god as being omnipotent. In order to evade logical paradoxes about causality it would be necessary for god to be omnipresent also, otherwise there would be things which were both possible and impossible (this assumes that the internal workings of god are not constrained by relativity, which would be a whole other debate - given that god in the abrahamic tradition is often described as both within and without the universe I wouldn't have thought this was too objectionable). However, in order to perform any physical act god must have a material presence, therefore material evidence of god must be ubiquitous.

So omnipotent god ultimately implies ubiquitous material presence of god.

However, no ubiquitous material presence of god is observed. Therefore there is no omnipotent god.

One of the main reasons I'm pagan is that I do not believe in an omnipotent God, so this seems to make perfect sense to me.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by Mannix99)
Hi Mmmpie, please could you tell me or refer to one of your previous post to explain why would you include in the omnipotence only things that are logically possible. How do you define that propriety? Do you restrain this "logically possible" to our current knowledge of logic, to our Universe or do you refer to an absolute logic realm on which even God would have to obey?

The definition isn't mine, and usually I object to it. It's put forward as a way to resolve many of the paradoxes associated with omnipotence, such as the paradox of stone. In order to do this you define omnipotence as permitting every action which does not entail a logical paradox - so god cannot create a stone so heavy that god cannot lift it.

(Original post by Mannix99)
Sorry again if you have already explain this point somewhere else in this thread (I just don't want to go back to read more than 300 of pages of flameware and other interesting comments otherwise) but please could you elaborate here? Why an omnipotent God should be omnipresent?

This was in the post which you quoted, but may not have been entirely clear.

Instantaneous action at a distance would entail a logical paradox, to do with the breakdown of causality - the ordering of events in space-time would no longer hold and all sorts of horrible peculiar things would happen. So in order to be able to perform any act in any place at any time there must be ubiquitous presence.

[Bilco]

(Original post by Zaki)
No. I accuse people of name-calling when they engage in name-calling and ignorance when they display lack of knowledge. That's all.

Read back through your posts and try that again.

[Zaki]

(Original post by Bilco)
Read back through your posts and try that again.

Well, if even YOU don't know what it is you're complaining about why do you expect me to know? The problem with too many people here is that they emote far too much and deliberate far too little. The proper application of intellect seems an impossible skill for them.

[Bilco]

(Original post by Zaki)
Well, if even YOU don't know what it is you're complaining about why do you expect me to know? The problem with too many people here is that they emote far too much and deliberate far too little. The proper application of intellect seems an impossible skill for them.

I read the other posts here. And since you say this even now you are not listening to what someone says to you. An issue you seem to have throughout this discussion.

[Zaki]

(Original post by Bilco)
I read the other posts here. And since you say this even now you are not listening to what someone says to you. An issue you seem to have throughout this discussion.

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're on about. If you can't explain yourself with words that I can read why do you expect me to be able to read your mind?

[madrid90]

Swinburbe (a former oxford lecturer), would argue that; if we add up all the arguments for the existence of god, for example: the ontological, cosmological, moral, design, religious experiences, then the existen of God is more probable than not.

[Zaki]

(Original post by madrid90)
Swinburbe (a former oxford lecturer), would argue that; if we add up all the arguments for the existence of god, for example: the ontological, cosmological, moral, design, religious experiences, then the existen of God is more probable than not.

True. But rather weak, don't you think? I've been generally disappointed with what I've seen of Oxford lecturers so far. But maybe one of them will still surprise me.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by madrid90)
Swinburbe (a former oxford lecturer), would argue that; if we add up all the arguments for the existence of god, for example: the ontological, cosmological, moral, design, religious experiences, then the existen of God is more probable than not.

You mean Richard Swinburne? He is an excellent philosopher; someone who it would actually be interesting and worthwhile to see the likes of Dawkins debate with.

However, there is a fundamental epistemological issue with Swinburne's work. He himself admits that belief in god is justified by what he calls the "Principle of Credulity" which validates personal experience, but cannot be proved nor disproved empirically - if you don't accept his principle of credulity, and it isn't compatible with fallibilism (which is generally considered central in the philosophy of science), then his arguments are severely weakened.

[SMed]

(Original post by madrid90)
Swinburbe (a former oxford lecturer), would argue that; if we add up all the arguments for the existence of god, for example: the ontological, cosmological, moral, design, religious experiences, then the existen of God is more probable than not.

Wait, what? If you add up a bunch of bad arguments you get a good argument? Maybe I've misunderstood - it happens.

[Zaki]

(Original post by SMed)
Wait, what? If you add up a bunch of bad arguments you get a good argument? Maybe I've misunderstood - it happens.

Now, if only atheists would apply that recognition elsewhere.