Eruv, what’s that?

Not being able to do the logically and intrinsically impossible is not a confinement of abilities. As Lewis says: nonsense is still nonsense! You can't get a four sided triangle. You can't do something that is not there to be done. Again: "Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible". To suggest that this is somehow confinement is just nonsense.

Not being able to do something IS a limitation

.. unless that something isn't there to be done in the first place (which is basically to say that such illogical nonsense as you suggest is not actually some thing at all).

As soon as you tell me how it's possible to have a four-sided triangle or a square circle, you will have a point. Until such time, Lewis answered your objection decades ago by showing that the too-heavy-rock kind of objection is meaningless.

Is it illogical to be able to change the laws of logic with ultimate power at your disposal?

Yes, it's illogical because no matter how much power one has, they can't do what's not there to be done in the first place. An agent cannot bring about an impossible state of affairs, as that is incoherent (or 'nonsense' as Lewis put it). Asking if an omnipotent agent can alter logic is just restating the too-heavy-rock question a different way. Ultimate power is power to do all that is possible to be done.

It seems to me that you are just altering the nature of omnipotence and providing limits

No, it's not imposing a limit at all. Let's say you have the power to go anywhere – it's not imposing a limit to recognise that you can't go somewhere that doesn't exist as that's not actually a 'somewhere'.
If we say that Johnny has the power to make any shape he wishes, he still cannot make a square circle – for a shape with 90o corners is in no way a circle. A square circle doesn't exist to be made. That is no limit on Johnny's power to make any shape he wishes.

It's not altering the nature of omnipotence to say that one can't do what is not there to be done. Rather, it would be altering it to say that it does mean one can do what is not there to be done. (That's more than simply 'laws of logic' it's about, as Lewis puts it, intrinsic possibility.

I mean, if you want to take a definition of 'omnipotence' that is different to the one that is normally meant when speaking of God, fine, but just don't be surprised when God doesn't fit that definition! ;)

Why can it not be done? What prevents it?

*sigh*.. because it's not there to be done – you can't do what is not there to be done. Omnipotence speaks of power to do all that it is possible to do, not about creating impossible states of affair.

It would first be necessary to define what a square circle is before it could be made as a shape. There is no such thing as a square circle because how would one define one, how, in 2 dimensions, or even 3, could it be made.

A square circle would be a shape that is both a circle and a square, which is of course nonsensically impossible. It cannot be both a square and a circle – it's not do-able. It's intrinsically impossible. Either it is round, or is has 4 corners. Thus, a square circle is not there to be made. The analogy thus stands as does Lewis' comment that putting 'God can' in front of a nonsensical collection of words doesn't make them any less nonsensical.

My understanding of "omnipotence" is that of ultimate, unlimited power. Anything less is not really omnipotence.

Yes, but power to do what is there to be done. Ominpotence says nothing of what is not there to be done.

I have come to expect theists to morph the definition to suit their needs

In this case, it is you who is morphing the (historical) understanding of the term as applied to God into something else in order to suit your needs.

Hmm.. interesting definition. To me it implies that I am omnipotent in the sense that I can do all that it is possible for me to do, and not do all that it is impossible for me to do.

I think you're confusing the reasons why something is impossible.
It is impossible for me to lift a five ton rock, not because a five ton rock cannot be lifted, but because I don't have the strength. That is a very different kind of impossibility to having a shape that is both spherical and cornered at the same time. So omnipotence is not just what is possible for said agent, but what is intrinsically possible – what is there to be done. It's not about being impossible for you, but simply being intrinsically impossible (like a cornered sphere), no matter who you are or how much power you might have.
Lifting said rock is impossible for me because of my lack of ability, but drawing a square circle is impossible regardless of my drawing ability.

you have found that a square circle cannot be created except by setting up a suitable definition which allows for it to exist.

We might very well come up with a new shape and label it a square circle, but that simply avoids the point of the analogy, that a shape cannot be what we currently label a circle and what we currently label a square at the same time. A shape cannot be spherical and have corners at the same time.

However, for this one case you have given reason, but for the lack of omnipotence of an omnipotent God

I'm not arguing that an omnipotent God is not omnipotent (question begging?) I'm arguing that your understanding of the concept of omnipotent is faulty. If I've given reason why a square circle cannot possible exist, then that is a reason why omnipotence does not mean the ability to do the intrinsically impossible (such as create a square circle).

you have yet to explain why God cannot change laws of logic, or just break all logical laws, to suit his own ends. You provide no reason for why it cannot be done.

Because it's intrinsically impossible. It's not really even about 'laws' – again, the reason is quite simply that it cannot be done if it's not there to be done! If we ask 'why isn't it there to be done?' we might as well be asking why isn't there unicorn meat for me to have on my sandwich. When you ask "What about it makes it "not there to be done"?" the answer is in your question – not being there to be done; you can't reduce it any further. Why is a unicorn not there to be killed?

I have not changed my definition of "omnipotent"; I use the same definition that I have always used, that of ultimate power. I see no reason why ultimate power should be limited.

Ok, fine.. you haven't changed your definition – let me rephrase it: you're definition is not the one normally & historically used when speaking of God's omnipotence, which is bordering of equivocation.
And as I pointed out, recognising that one can't do what isn't there to be done is not putting a limit on power any more than not being able to go where there isn't somewhere, is putting a limit on mobility.
Unlimited power says nothing about being able to do that which is not there to be done.

but you have yet to explain why God cannot change laws of logic, or just break all logical laws

logical laws are descriptive, not proscriptive, for starters. How does one break the law that says an empty glass has no liquid? It really is still, as Lewis writes, nonsense – it doesn't make sense. And if we say that perhaps God changes the nature of reality so that empty and 200mls go together, that's hardly any different from changing the definition of empty! No.. the intrinsically impossible is not there to be done any more than the ability to travel to somewhere that doesn't exist is possible.

Because it's intrinsically impossible.

Why?

Because that's the way it is. Look, if you have a glass that is empty, it has, by definition, no liquid. If it has 200mls of water, it is intrinsically impossible, by definition, to be empty. Therefore, the reason it is empty is because it doesn't have liquid in it – which is essentially a tautology – it's empty because it's empty. Now we're talking definitions – there are myriad causal reasons why this particular glass may be empty (e.g. I drank the water), but that's not what we're talking about – when we ask 'why is it empty' we are asking what is the nature of the glass that causes us to remark that it's empty (or 'why do we say the glass is empty = because it is empty).
To keep asking why something intrinsically impossible is intrinsically impossible just gets us into a tautological circle.

The answer is most definitely not in my question. You claim that it cannot be done, now provide the evidence and reasoning.

Oh, the answer is there, because the question is a tautology: It's not there to be done because it's not there to be done!
If you think it's possible to do something that's not there to be done, please show us – the burden is not on me, but on you. I've shown the reasoning. If you think the intrinsically impossible is possible, then the onus is on you to show that. As soon as you can show me how a glass can have 200mls of water in it and still be empty, then we can continue.

Further, if something is not there to be done, the power to do that is not there either – the power to do the intrinsically impossible is non-existent and thus cannot be a part of the 'all' in all-powerful.

Because evolution did not produce unicorns. Simple.

And why didn't evolution not produce unicorns? Because those mutations didn't happen. Why didn't they happen?… do you see where that is going – eventually we get to a point where we must simply say 'because it didn't. Even so, as I pointed out – our question is no about causality but ontology / nature: why do I remark that there is no unicorn for me to eat? Because there isn't one.

Essentially you're arguing for an absolutist view, while I'm arguing for the Scholastic View which says that:

God is able to do whatever is not "intrinsically impossible." "Intrinsically impossible" things are of two kinds: 1) things which would not be in accord with God's nature (e.g., sinning or lying); and 2) things which would be logically impossible, connoting mutually repellent elements simultaneously (e.g., a square circle).

and until you come to grips with intrinsic impossibility or show why it's not a problem, we're both going to be just repeating ourselves I think.

No, you don't get it – I've already explained that if a power is non-existent (such as the power to do the intrinsically impossible) then it cannot be a part of the 'all'. All power refers to power that is, not power that isn't (If a power station produces 1mil MW of power, then all power in that instance is 1mil MW, not the 2mil that is not there to be had because it didn't produce it. That is not a confinement or limitation. The only failure here is your failure to realise that a nonsense sentence remains so even if 'God can..' is added to the front of it.
And further, as I said, even if we suggest that God changes the 'laws' (which are descriptive as I noted, not proscriptive) and basically, the nature of reality, so that a glass with 200mls can also be empty (something that it essentially incomprehensible to our minds which are subject to these laws.. part of the problem in thinking about it), it is virtually the same as changing the definition of empty, which gets us nowhere. Nonsense remains nonsense. Indeed, if God can alter the laws of logic, then the dilemmas such as the too-heavy-rock become meaningless, because the dilemma is based on our logical laws. Even if we were to grant that God can change the laws of logic, that doesn't mean he would, especially if it is in his nature to be logical. (logic is, after all, about reason, not power)

Not being able to do what isn't there to be done is not a negation of omnipotence as omnipotence is about having all the power to do whatever is there to actually be done.

To suggest that saying 'you can go anywhere, except places that don't exist' is an application of 'scope' which means you don't have absolute freedom of travel is a nonsense idea, as much as it is nonsense to say that non being able to create a full-empty glass (which is not there to be made) is a limitation of power.

Despite what you think, there is no failure, nor is there any 'clinging on' to a failing definition. It is the Absolutist definition you are forcing that fails to understand the Scholastic view. Asking meaningless questions does not equate to rebutting the classic understanding of omnipotence.

It seems to me that this is just another case of trying to force a different understanding onto something which has historically understood to be defined differently (not unlike the oft spouted definitions of 'faith'). If we are talking about the Christian God, then it is the historical, classical understanding of what omnipotence means in this context that should not just be forced out by whatever understanding or meaning of a word we might bring to the table. (You don't like it when people assert a meaning of, say, 'atheist' that isn't what you mean by it, do you?)
To assert that your Absolutist definition is the only one, ignoring the view of classical theology is akin to equivocation.

Why can omnipotence not include this power?

Because that power doesn't, indeed, cannot, exist – it's not there to be included in the first place.
And in any case, I've shown that even if it could, it would nonsensical.

Would it not be logical for an omniscient and omnipotent being to change the laws of logic to suit his own needs?

But then of course, an empty glass full of water would be the logical point (and we might then be asking how an empty-full glass can be full without being empty!) which is virtually the same as changing the definition of empty. It's meaningless to wonder about how things might be if logic were different, because we're restricted to thinking with the logic we do have.

In any case, what reason is there to think that the way it is currently is not suitable for his 'needs'?

Why could he not have both the power to do this, and the will to?

Why could I not be a unicorn? Because I'm not!
Even if we grant the power, it's meaningless to ask 'what if God's nature were different' when we're restricted to thinking via the processes that currently are, and which I'm suggesting are grounded in his nature as it is.

Why is it not there?

I've already pointed out how this is a tautoligous question.

you are yet to demonstrate that it is not

That sounds very much like those who would ask you to show that God isn't there!! No, if you think it's possible to do the intrinsically impossible, please demonstrate as much

you have neglected to reason why it supposedly cannot exist.

No I haven't – I've shown many times that it cannot exist because it is intrinsically impossible. Or, that if it could, it would be meaningless to speculate about it anyway.

I can't find evidence for the existence of God, but you can know his nature?

I realise that you don't find the evidence and reasons for God to be persuasive.. that's pretty much irrelevant at this point.
I don't expect you to suddenly accept the concept of revelation either. Never-the-less, if you're going to engage in philosophising about God, you have to allow certain assumptions for the sake of the discussion.

what I am asking of you is to explain why it is intrinsically impossible as you so claim. You claim that God cannot change the laws of logic, you claim that it is intrinsically impossible, and yet you do not show that it is intrinsically impossible; you provide neither evidence nor reasoning, you just claim that it is so because it is so.

It's what the word intrinsic means: "belonging to a thing by its very nature" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic?…

What you keep asking me is why something is it's very nature – and there is no other answer than 'it just is' – it's tautologous. And I have shown that a square circle and a full-empty glass are intrinsically impossible. Empty is intrinsically lacking liquid, and thus it cannot both have and not have liquid at the same time – it is intrinsically impossible. So it remains, that if you will not accept that, you must demonstrate why.

Does it being meaningless really negate the reality that it could be done?

a) It can't be done, because it's not there to be done, as I've said. and b) even if it could, the result makes it meaningless for us to think about it – just like the objection to the anthropic argument that it's meaningless to wonder about what if the universe weren't like it is, because we wouldn't be here to ask that question – well, if God altered the nature of logic, we wouldn't be asking about full-empty glasses!

you (unless you believe by blind faith alone) must have evidence of God's existence, of your God's existence, and of the nature of God before you can actually make any such claims of knowledge of the nature of God.

I see what you're saying. And while I do have evidence and reason for my beliefs (even though I assume you would not find it persuasive), in doing such philosophy we don't need to first prove something, we must simply make certain assumptions for the point of the discussion – you see it all hangs on a great big 'IF': "if God….". In discussing the nature of God, you are of course doing so hypothetically, as you don't have a belief in any such God's existence.

why is it intrinsic?

It is intrinsic because the impossibility belongs to the nature of the thing.

A square circle is intrinsically impossible, not because someone lacks the power to do (as if that power is there to be had) but because within the idea of a square circle it cannot be done – it would either cease to be a square or a circle, thus, it is intrinsic to the shape that it is impossible.

So allow me to give the shortened answer: because it is.

It's like asking why I say I am inside: because I'm not outside, therefore I'm inside. I'm inside because that's where I am, and we call that inside. The only way I can be outside and inside at the same time is to change the definition, which doesn't actually change the ontological reality.

No. You cannot simply say that it is it's nature without saying why it is it's nature. You are making a claim with no evidence or reasoning.

Either you don't understand the term 'intrinsic' or you're confusing ontology and causality.
At some point you have to just accept that something's ontological nature simply is what it is. Asking what the cause of that ontological nature is, is essentially meaningless. I mean, why is there something rather than nothing in the universe? That's the kind of question you're asking (which I suspect you would normally say is a meaningless question).
Far from having no evidence or reasoning – it is self-evident that a square circle is intrinsically impossible. Suggesting it could be any different is incomprehensible nonsense.

I could say that you losing this argument is intrinsic to the argument. Without reasoning, it is meaningless. But if you questioned it, I could just retort: "because it is". I doubt that you would accept that as an answer, so why should I?

Well you just show here that you don't understand the term intrinsic.
For me losing an argument (even if I were losing this one, which I'm not.. your meaningless question doesn't get any better by simply repeating it!) is not intrinsic to the argument – I could just as possibly win this argument as lose it and the argument would still be possible. You cannot, however, possibly have a circle with corners, not in any situation – thus, it is intrinsicaly impossible to have a square circle, not because I can't do it (like that I can't lift a semi-trailer), but because by very nature that thing cannot be done; it's not there to do. You've yet to show me this is not the case, and until you do, your question remains, as ever, tautologous and thus meaningless.

Why is it intrinsically impossible for God to change the laws of logic?

I'm not sure I said it was. I was talking about the intrinsic impossibility of certain things (e.g. square circles) which means they're not there to be done, and one cannot lack power to do that which doesn't exist and cannot exist.

However, I did say that even if we concede that God might change logic, it's meaningless because we can't conceive outside the logic we do operate in. As I said before, if God changes logic, then we wouldn't be here asking about these issues because they wouldn't be issues anymore! It's virtually no different from changing the definition of circle so that a square circle is no longer what we originally meant by the term.

Perhaps. It would seem that we have been talking about two differing things though, you about intrinsic impossibility as something which cannot be done, and me trying to get you to explain why, as I believe you claimed, it was intrinsically impossible for the laws of logic to be changed by God.

You claimed it to be intrinsically impossible 2 days ago:

Is it illogical to be able to change the laws of logic with ultimate power at your disposal?

Yes, it's illogical because no matter how much power one has, they can't do what's not there to be done in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrin…

"An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, independently of other things, including its context. For example, mass is a physical intrinsic property of any physical object.
…
A sentence or statement or proposition that ascribes intrinsic properties to something is entirely about that thing.
…
A thing has its intrinsic properties in virtue of the way that thing itself, and nothing else, is.
…
The intrinsic properties of something depend only on that thing
…
If something has an intrinsic property, then so does any perfect duplicate of that thing;"

That's the long philosophical way of saying "because it is" ;)

Well you know what they say about stupid questions ;p

If you're unwilling to accept a philosophical concept like intrinsic properties, there's not much I can do about that.

I have shown numerous times why a square-circle or a full-empty glass is intrinsically – by nature and definition – impossible. If you dispute that, then please demonstrate how they do have some intrinsic possibility.

Where did the "laws of logic" come from…

His nature.

And anyway.. why do you even care what omnipotent means in the context of a God you lack belief in?

So he defines the laws of logic and yet is limited by them?

Well I think it's misleading to use the term 'limited' – it implies that there's something there to be done that he can't do due to lack of power, but that is not the case here, as I've been trying to show. And further, it seems to ignore the grounding in his nature of logic. I mean – God cannot lie, either.. just to throw in another aspect of the Scholastic view.

I'm trying to find out how ridiculous your claim is.

It may be difficult to grasp, but it's logically consistent and doesn't resort to expecting the word 'God can' to change the nonsense of any given collection of words. To my mind, suggesting that not being able to do what isn't there to be done is somehow imposing a limit is the ridiculous claim.

Of course it is limited; you claim that he lacks the power to do something which can be conceived of (even if our minds cannot grasp the result of the change). Your omnipotent God, by your own definition, is limiting his own power.

No, I'm arguing that it can't be conceived (or grasped as you also put it, contradicting yourself) – though it has obviously been suggested – a square circle, and a full empty glass are inconceivable (nonsense) and thus the power is simply not there to be had. As I said earlier – it is no limit to mobility to say that you can't go to a non-existent place.

You cannot lack something that is not there to be had!
God is omnipotent in that he has power to do 'all' that he pleases (which innately means anything that can be done – again, it says nothing about a non-existent ability to do that which is not there to be done).

Really.. unless you're actually going to offer anything new, you can ask tautologous questions till the cows come home, you'll only end up going round in circles.. and I'm getting motion sickness! Thank-you for an interesting, and indeed, challenging discussion (and polite!) but I think you'll probably agree that we're at an impasse, right?

I can conceive of walking out into the street and punching the first person that I meet

I can't conceive of a square circle, or a full – empty glass, can you?

(I can conceive of the consequences of punching a stranger though)

I do not believe my questions to have been tautologous

It is though – it's like asking why a rock is a rock – you might get through any number of steps describing chemistry and so on, but at some point you have to just say that it is what it is. Why can't we have a square circle? Because a circle can't have corners. Why not? Because then it wouldn't be a circle? Why not? Because it can't have corners… round and round.

until you can answer the questions that I asked without resorting to "because it is"-type responses, we can go no further.

But your question cannot be answered any other way. How else can you answer the question "why doesn't x exist?" then to say 'because it doesn't'? (remembering that we're talking ontologically, not causally – though one can't really talk about causality of non-existence anyway)

Again, how is not having a power that is not there to be had mean you lack or are confined in having all the power that is there to be had?
All power does not included nonsense that you make up that doesn't and cannot exist.

And my point remains – if logic were different, and we could conceive of an empty-full glass, we wouldn't be having this discussion anyway – it's meaningless.

How do you know which powers are available and which are not?

Well, if something is not there to be done, then how can the power to do it exist?

You seem to be saying (and I do not want to put words in your mouth) that logic is a intrinsic property of "god" – how do you know this? Simply asserting this as fact is not a proof, you need to supply more.

I'm not so much asserting fact, as holding certain assumptions, and as we're doing philosophy, such assumptions – which allow the discussion to actually take place – don't need to be proved: they are the 'if' parts of the equation. Indeed, the very issue – God's omnipotence – is also such an assumption. Where does it come from? From revelation. If we're going to talk about the Christian God then we need accept (for the sake of the discussion) all that goes with that, including the idea of a self-revelatory God.

If you're going to object that I can't use the concept of intrinsic logic of God, then why bother worrying about the concept of God's omnipotence? If you're going to reject the idea of revelation, at least be consistent about it. Otherwise it's just like your reneging on an assumption you previously allowed.

And who are you to say which properties and powers can or cannot exist?

Logic says that a square circle cannot exist, and that if it cannot exist, the power to do it cannot exist.
So again I ask you (as you've avoided answering it): if something is not there to be done, then how can the power to do it exist? And if that power doesn't and cannot exist, how can it be had or lacking?

I am going to object because you have assumed an entity you have labelled "god" then proceeded to attribute all manner of properties to it without any evidence whatsoever.

You're simply reneging because it's not going how you like! If you suppose an entity for the sake of the discussion, you must allow the assumptions that come with it, otherwise it's pointless. You don't have to prove 'if' statements in philosophy before you think about them, otherwise they wouldn't exactly be 'if' statements!
As I said before – if you're going to discuss God, and in particular the idea of his omnipotence, you have to take the whole package – you can't cherry pick. Now – you've yet to tell me how many other versions of logic you've seen, to know that logic can be any different to the way it is..

If by generation he meant 'age' or 'race' as the term (and the aramaic the greek is probably based on – there is some ambiguity in sharbeta and genea ) was often used in that era , then yes.

But I'm guessing you're going to do that normal anti-theist thing (not dissimilar to fundamentalists) and assume that your interpretation cannot be wrong… right?

Or did Jesus usher in the Kingdom already? ;)

Who says the Kingdom is ushered in at the second coming? Rather, it seems to me that it was inaugurated at his death – inaugurated but not consummated. Indeed he uses a lot of marriage symbolism in regards to it, and in the C1st Jewish understanding there is such a gap between inauguration and consummation.

What?

If Jesus hadn't ushered in the Kingdom then, no, it would have been false. The point is that you tried to say that Jesus had lied – and I pointed out that your understanding of the Kingdom was wrong.

Think of your "choice" in terms of probabilities – 50% there is a God and 50% there is no God. I would not feel secure gambling with those odds.

Have you considered that the scientific method is still unable to detect spirit yet, and in the future it's a possibility?? Centuries ago we could not see microbes, split the adom and fly air crafts etc hey! My dad loves the advancements in avionics being a pilot.

I have an analogy for you that you are just going to adore hehe ;) Jesus point of reference in life – Being lost in the woods can be a failure of the mind…It starts with denial, we are not lost everything is ok. Then the sobering reality setts in as you walk around tied, hungry, bewildered and at the mercy of the elements. You have come to your senses that indeed you are lost. You need a compass so you can find true north. What can happen in the woods also happens in life. You need a point of reference on how to navigate life. Jesus is that point of reference, a great place to start to find yourself again. Said in love, kind regards xx

"there is ZERO evidence for the existence of your deity"

You're either making the mistake of thinking that finding evidence unpersuasive = no evidence, or that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence… perhaps you're doing both? In any case, the more correct thing is to say that there is zero evidence that you find persuasive.

how I can verify the finding it generates.

You mean – how can you verify scientifically those things? ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I take it you have another way to know things other than the scientific method?

Don't get me wrong – science is great: it does what it does (explored the natural realm) very well. But that does not mean it can answer any question we might wish to ask.

Philosophy, history, art, literature.. and, I would say, religion, are all valid explorations of knowledge.

Well I would go as far as to say that i think the scientific process is the only reliable way to know what is true, we all use it everyday whether we think of it or not. When I'm working on someone else's code that I have no idea how it works, I follow the scientific process. Construct a hypothesis from what I observe, set some breakpoints in the code, run the code, did the code do what I thought it did when I started, no? Observe, change hypothesis. Rise and Repeat.

"Don't get me wrong – science is great: it does what it does (explored the natural realm) very well."

You first have to prove that there is something other then the natural realm, and how would you do that?

"Philosophy, history, art, literature.. and, I would say, religion, are all valid explorations of knowledge."

I would say they are great expressions of knowledge, but they don't hold any weight in validating the truth.

Tell me, how do you tell the truth from the bullshit in religion? What is the process you follow?

I will just sit by and watch as science closes every gap that religion has; Earth is flat, Nope sorry science got that one right; Sun moves around the earth, nope sorry science wins again. Your argument that science is not the only way to truth is just a God of the gaps style argument, move God into the corner that science hasn't explained yet and claim "oh science isn't the only way to truth", the science comes into that corner and we find out what is there so you just move again.

Just because there are two choices, it does not mean that there is an equal probability between the two choices.

Besides, if you want to start talking about probabilities, you also have to pick the "correct" god. And if you don't pick the "correct" god, your fate is just as bad as picking no god at all.

So by your faulty logic, you say that choice between god and no god is 50%. Well, after you pick the god option, you have, lets say a 5% chance of picking the correct god after that. (I'm being very generous, there's so many religions it would be much lower.

So lets see the math…

No god – 0.5 = 50%

God – 0.5 x 0.05 = 2.5 %

Geez, the god option doesn't look so good now.

Such a being should be free of any flaw or shortcomings

Why should creating a universe indicate a shortcoming? Is self-expression a shortcoming?

Before I reply in more detail, can I just ask – are you an artist?

Do you play because you need to – will you be lacking if you don't? Or is it because you enjoy doing and it reflects something of your personality?

We need to clear up what we mean by 'need' – is it a lack or is it and urge / desire? I don't see that a desire to express oneself is necessarily an indicator of a need to fill something that is lacking.

Do people have children because they feel lonely (a bad idea!) or because expressing love and care is a part of their nature? Would they not be just as loving and caring even if they didn't have children to lavish it on?

Hey, God is a relational being just like us. God would have managed just find without having created us as he is independent of needs…I think he did it more for our benefit that we would experience everlasting love, joy and life adundant in his presence…ta! xx

Hey askegg, are wanting to open up another can of whip ass?? ;D

As a professional 'artist' I know there's different reason people do creative things, but I'm not sure that self-expression indicates a lack or 'need' in that sense.
You asked, was God lonely – no, he has always had eternal perfect fellowship within the trinity – one of the wonders of Christian doctrine is that he brings us into that fellowship, but not because he 'needed' to, but as expression of his nature and character.
The other thing to remember is that God is outside of time, and that creation (and indeed, New Creation) was always in his plan, so it's not like 'one day' he realised he 'needed' something.

I would say a creative person 'needs' to create, because they are creative.. (as an artist, and someone who works with artists, I don't agree that expression is necessarily about 'repressed' emotions – though as it's usually exploratory, discoveries about oneself can often be made) I don't see how that is an imperfection, or a lack of something, though, certainly not in an ontological sense.

I agree, that creation was not specifically for our benefit, though we undoubtedly do benefit from it, and from God's redemptive plan – but ultimately, and I think this is the classical reformed perspective, it was for God's own glory. John Piper is perhaps one of the most voracious contemporary advocates of this position (which he provocatively calls Christian Hedonism) see here, and here, where he answers the question which inevitably is raised: How is God's passion for his own glory not selfishness.

Whatever you think about that, I don't see how you can suggest that it is a lack of 'perfection' in his being. The 'impulse', if you will, is an outpouring, and expression of his nature – not a means to filling a hole-need.

And what if someone who was so desperate for God to reveal himself, that after years of reading scripture and begging God to reveal himself, they became severely depressed and suicidal because they thought that they were despicable and unworthy of God's attention, unlike all of their peers who they knew for a fact were far more sinful than them?

Since I was such a person, and only ended my depression after a very long process of doubt, deconversion, and self-reliance, I find this attitude naive and insulting. I was most certainly diligent, and not a casual seeker. Do you honestly think that I did not really want the Gospel to be true? Of course I did. I never experienced God. As I began to look for reasons to believe outside of personal experience, I found the philosophical arguments and historical evidence sorely lacking.

Surely your absolutely perfect God would have known what would have happened in my life to make me who I am. He would know that there was a long period of time when I was not only open to a personal experience, but desperate for it in a way I think most people never are. He would know that I would get involved in the skeptic community, and learn how unreliable personal experience is, and how MANY faiths rely on a similar personal experience to "know" that their faith is true. Are Christians' personal experiences the real thing, but Mormons and Muslims are either deceived by Satan or just experiencing a psychological phenomenon?

People do not "choose" what to believe in. People are products of their genes and environment. Their beliefs are based on what they are convinced to be true.

You say people do not "choose" what to believe in (I did). I reject that claim as people do "chose" exercising their God given free will. Saying people are the product of their genes, environment (whilst i agree there is an influence) and beliefs are based on what they are convinced to be true is a way to negate responsibility for "choice". Someone can commit a heinous crime and claim it's because of my genes, environment and belief system i did it…do you find that to be satisfactory?? with love xx

I don't think anyone really believes anything in a vacuum – in that sense, no we don't choose what to believe in the same way might chooses which flavour of ice-cream to have. We believe what we think is true, what we think is the reality of the case – but, of course, what we think is the reality may be based on other suppositions, which may in turn be based on other suppositions..
N.T. Wright comments that after showing his tome on the resurrection to his old Oxford tutor, the guy remarked that it was a really good argument but that his 'simply chooses to believe that there must be another explanation, even though he doesn't know what that is".
But he doesn't, of course, "simply" choose – there's presuppositions about naturalism at play – it conflicts with what he understands to be true about the nature of reality.

No worries!

If you don't know about the Great Old Ones or Cthulhu, you're in luck, here's a Cthulhu tract for you:

You find that disgusting?

Interesting, Have you read the bible?

Hey Nathan, Where in the Bible does it glorify suicide, a man off to massacre his family and blaspheming God?? Please provide chapter and verse/s. What sheer number of such events are you making reference and a comparison too?? An accurate decernment of response is to use covert manipulation to twist, distort and take out of context. ta xx

Hey Nathan, thanks for acknowledging that the Bible does not glorify blaspheming God. You have failed to point out where it does glorify suicide and a man off to massacre his family…God does not glorify or advocate such things therefore it is an ineligible comparison. In what way do you suppose the events you have highlighted in the OT are to be considered similar to the comic stripe?? ta xx

Hello askegg + fellas ;)…Did God ask Jephthah to make a vow?? Did God ask Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter?? Did God glorify or advocate Jephthah's actions?? – (this question is in comparison with comic strip…is it the same context?) What you have here is the recording of a tragic event giving an account of a rash vow and a holocaust…not a justification of it. God forbade human sacrifice as it's an abomination in His sight. Deut 18:10 & Levit 18:21. Personally I find this disturbing and sad that a young life was untimely and cut off in this horrific manner. Jephthah life raises some very hard questions for all of us, but we have a very big God and there are many unanswered questions that perplex us in life as to why?? It has gotten ridiculously squishy here!! ;) xx

by virtue of them having been included in the Bible, do you not agree that these must be important, and that they may inspire some people to do the same?

No. That's a huge imposition on the text, and fails to account for the genre and purpose of writing. It's quite mistaken to think that it's just a collection of moral examples!

(These kinds of discussions are inevitably hindered by and oft found anti-theist attitude that their hermenuetic and interpretation is infallible, and any attempt to do real exegesis is some kind of cop out..

I do not accept the libertarian/contra-causal free will that is required to support your position. At best, it's an incoherent concept that is supported by intuition pumps and appeals to consequences, such as moral responsibility. The consequences are false, and I can show how determinism is actually necessary for moral responsibility, while libertarian free will destroys it. It is libertarian free will that I find unsatisfactory.

I love discussing free will vs determinism, but it is a very big discussion that I think would be better held elsewhere. I think askegg is planning on making future posts about his worldview, and no doubt this discussion will come up. For now, I will say that I am a compatibilist (or soft determinist), which I will fully admit is determinism with a redefinition of free will. I look forward to our discussion when there is a proper venue for it.

I read both links you provided, and I have to say that as an outsider, I still see a flaw.

Consider this quote from the first link, "Instead what Isaiah 43:7 means is that he created us to display his glory, that is, that his glory might be known and praised."

To me, he appears vain. It sounds like he created the universe not to become more perfect, but to show off. Have you ever seen MTV Cribs? I'm not sure if they have MTV Cribs outside of the US. It's a show where celebrities get to show off their homes, and all the fancy stuff they have and how awesome their life is. That's kind of the picture I get of your God after reading the two links.

Other sections of the links you provided also paint him as a very jealous being, such as the discussion on Abraham and the tower of Babel. I think jealousy is a flaw in humans. I certainly think it is a flaw in a being worthy of being called God.

I understand how, as an insider, you don't see these things as flaws and imperfections. To outsiders, I don't think any case to make God appear perfect in this regard to the creation of the universe will hold much water (much like other arguments for and against the existence of a god).

I appreciate the links, though. They were interesting.

I think askegg brings up a good point.

In reference to your above remark about the crowd cheering a good performance, if some people in the audience aren't impressed, the performers don't have their kneecaps broken. If 2/3's of the audience isn't giving a standing ovation, the performers should reconsider their performance.

God gives us a universe currently 93 billion light years across, hundred of billions of galaxies, trillions upon trillions of stars, and we had better worship him or suffer for all eternity. He is not saying, "Here's this cool thing I did. I hope you like it. Be cool to each other." It's, "Here's this cool thing I did. Now worship me or you will fucking pay!"

It's a package deal, and I don't see your God acting like a humble performer. You can say that he created it for our enjoyment and benefit. But when his wish for us to be subservient and worship him and love him more than anything else, I can't accept that as anything but a huge character flaw. I know people who have gotten over jealousy. I know people who are not the attention whores that your God is. I know people who do not wish others harm when others do not appreciate their works.

If your God gets nothing out of his worship, he should have had a different plan for humanity.

Hey Andrew, not to change the subject at hand here but I'm curious to know yourself being a Christian if you have had spiritual experiences/encounters?? If it's ok please reply in the post a new comment section instead of this reply section. It's getting to narrow here…thanks! xx

Actually its more like saying "I'm holding a concert, nobody has ever seen me play, nor will they ever see me play, but honest, its MY music… no, really.. it IS !!

and if you don't believe in me, and not only that, but say nobody else can possibly create good music, then you're not only out in the cold, but you'll have to listen to nothing but enya for the rest of eternity.

I'm not sure I understand what you're after here…
The issue is whether God can change his nature, and I've posited an aspect of that which he cannot logically change. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean he cannot then change other aspects, but we only need one example to satisfy the question from above: "does god have the power to change his nature? " – Not necessarily.
Besides, the point is that if God is unchangeable, then the power to change is as non-existent as the power to create a too-heavy rock.. (and you know the rest…)

"This seems like a role reversal here. "

Well, I am using one of @askegg 's lines of argument against you in asking you how many other versions of logic you've seen, which I note neither of you have ventured to answer.. ;)

I do not sit by the keyboard waiting for your response. I have a life.

Oh, but you had replied several times – you just failed to answer that question until now ;)

You state that god can claim all the powers available, yet have been unable to demonstrate what they might be (although you have been philosophising over the question).

I don't have to demonstrate what each of those powers might be – I simply need to show logically what kind they may be, and what I've shown is that this is the power to do things that can logically be done. You have yet to show that the power to do that which is not there to be done can exist.

A central question Nathan and I seem to have is "could god create new powers, or create powers which are illogical?" to which you have answered "no" but not provided any real justification for.

I don't think you have asked if God could create 'new' powers – but in any case, if all possible powers are already there, how can one logically create more? In regards to the question of doing the illogical – the answer 'no' is because of God's nature (which you proceeded to then fallaciously renege on allowing assumptions about) and I would say because of the nature of the logical reality we're in.

How many systems of logic have I seen? One, but this is not really the right question.

It is a valid question – and it is your own reasoning: that in order to suppose and propose another reality, one must be able to demonstrate or observe it. Your question supposes that logic could possibly be different, and I'm asking you to show how you know that.

The question is, could a god create another system of logic that works just as well, yet is illogical to this system. This is not really a question anyone can answer, yet you have claimed to know. I want to know how.

No, I didn't claim to know, I too pointed out that it's a meaningless question because, as you put it, we cannot know. We are forced to think within this system of logic, a system which would tell us that any other way is illogical – you're asking if something can be illogical in one reality and logical in another, which is just a nonsense question. I answered several times that even if God could change logical reality, it's meaningless to think about it, and it would be essentially non different from simply changing the definitions. A square-circle in a different logical reality would still be illogical in ours, and would thus, by definition, be something different – a change in definition of what a square and what a circle is. And, as I said, if logic were different we wouldn't be having this discussion, so how is that different from say asking 'what if the universe were different (which you point out is a meaningless question, and that we haven't seen that it can be different)

So positing an ability to change the reality of logic is meaningless, and so it remains that the logically impossible is not there to be done, nor then is the power to do it existent. Thus, a non-existent power cannot be said to be lacking from or be a limit to 'all'. To suggest that not being able to make a square-circle means God is not omnipotent is thus logically faulty.

No – there is a massive problem right at the heart of your argument. You are claiming your god can only have the powers that are available. He cannot create new ones, or illogical ones (because logic is said to be "in his character").

One can only ever have what is there or what is possible to be there. If all possibilities of something are already all there, then it's logically impossible to create more or a new one.

Please show god is logical, or IS logic.

I've already called your reneging like this.

Then on what basis do you make any of these claims?

As I just said – on his self-revelation!

<blockqote>In any case, no matter what the ultimate answers, you can STILL claim they are god's innate nature. You can never BE wrong.

How is it that I can answer your objection, and you completely ignore that and make the very same objection in the next sentence?
I already explained that I cannot just claim whatever I like as God's nature…

We are told god has many attributes, omnipotence being one of them. We are also told god is logic (or logical). But combining all of these things simply does not work. You cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or omniscient and free. Theologians have had 2,000 years to reconcile these issues and so far – zilch.

Clearly you just haven't read very widely! ;)

How is there any contradiction in being free to do whatever you will, love whoever you will and know all knowledge? You've yet to show that there is any contradiction in doing all this logically.
But at the very least – you've acknowledged some of the assumptions that come with the territory, and even if you think they are in conflict, you must, for the sake of the argument, allow them, and have no grounds to demand they be first demonstrated.

Tax returns and plays both have very clear explicit instructions; the Bible doesn't seem to come with a list that says whether or not it applies to me.

Let us take an example, Leviticus 20:13:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

If you don't need to carry this out, why not? How can you tell?

I started this response by questioning all sorts of implications of your preferred approach to hermeneutics and exegesis (don't pretend there isn't division and debate over these processes) but all I felt was…

So what?

I mean as you conceded, people like me don't believe your god (let alone any god) exists, I doubt Jesus even lived, at least as described by the gospels, so the whole book is irrelevant to me. Hermeneutics and exegesis will get you no where with the billions of people who don't believe in the Christian god, either as atheists or as believers of some other faith.

So as always AndrewFinden, so what? So you have a post-hoc way of maintaining some usefulness for the bible (which certainly involves an awful lot of waste) beyond a 'story' of a life lived by a man with a message of salvation. So what?

So much of the discussions here all stem from everybody (including myself) ignoring the biggest question: whether god exists or not. It is as if no ones wants to tap it, no one wants to push the limits on that question and I see no reason why, especially here. To me everything else follows on from there, it is like debating over the score of a game without knowing what sport is being played. You may be defending Christian thinking around maintaining the bible or its relevance to Christians which is fine, you're on point and I fully accept it is often easy for the faithless and free to deride and mock believers. So it is fine to defend Christianity and Christian thought, it would be very simplistic and dishonest to claim a total lack of complexity and nuance to Christian thought. In fact, I freely admit the nuance to Christian thought has provided the first discussions on arguments for God's existence and the development of logical tools such as Occam's Razor.

My issue is I don't recall (and I haven't read everything you've said on this site) you actually laying out an argument, with evidence, to even suggest the god and theology of Christianity is true. Do you have one? Is the most convincing argument, to you, for the truth of Christianity really why you believe? Is the argument actually supported with demonstrable evidence? Is it valid and sound? I'm sure if you wanted you could arrange something with Askegg to have it posted or linked or discussed on the podcast or something, anything!

You've demonstrated a wide range of knowledge and passion for your religion and its history but I haven't seen a demonstration of the truth of its, and your, claims about the universe and concepts of the divine.

I'm just getting tired of saying 'so what?' to myself, and you, whenever I read your posts.

Hi Jamie,

have a look at this website: http://beginningwithmoses.org/about/what-is-bibli…
and I would highly recommend Graeme Goldsworthy's excellent lay-level book on the subject According to Plan.

Hello lovely askegg & crew, I'm a young person and have only been a Christian for nearly six years. I have not found it to difficult to understand. Sure there are things i don't comprehend fully…example the book of Rev! I find the story of Jesus to be straightforward enough.
I do take into account 1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

"I am also thankful that you, out of the 34,000 denominations of Christianity, have managed to decipher the one true correct interpretation of the holy text" – that seems to be argument by ridicule.

I am also thankful that you, out of the 34,0000 denominations of Christianity, have managed to decipher the one true correct interpretation of the holy text.

Firstly, you are no doubt aware that the vast majority of mainline protestant denominations hold the vast majority of core doctrines in common. Different denomination does not necessarily mean different doctrine. Generally the differences lie in organisational structure, ecclesiastic style or in secondary issues. Pretending that there's 34,000 different versions of Christianity is highly misleading.
Secondly, I am not claiming I have found the 'one true interpretation'. I am quite willing to be corrected in my interpretation – good exegesis requires such a willingness. But everyone who reads a text and thinks they know what it is saying / what it means in interpreting – so, Nathan, above, implying that I should stone adulterers is making an interpretation. Everyone makes interpretations – it's just that some are more correct than others. Exegesis is the process by which we seek to find the correct one: that is, what the author intended us to understand, and who the author intended it apply to (if it's instructive). And good exegesis means we must be open to correction.

Your god still requires the brutal torture and killing of his own son in order to lift the curse he himself placed on humanity because we were created curious by his own hand.

>
When, technically he requires payment for our sin – he didn't 'require' that Jesus be killed, but he graciously allowed his Son to take the punishment we deserved. It's a nice little slip of logic you've done there too in suggesting that we deserve punishment because of God's actions.
We (humanity) were under the curse of sin (rebellion) because we chose to indulge in it. That is the step you gloss over. Creating a possibility is not the same as causing the action. To ignore the willing participation you are using bad logic (Post hoc ergo propter hoc).

I am also concerned that the creator of the entire universe has changed his mind and created a "new covenant" with with humanity.

God didn't change his mind, he just started a new covenant, as he always planned to. And why should it be a concern when the new covenant is the one that says Jesus' will pay our debt?

I am also concerned that we had no say in what the conditions of this arrangement

It's a bit of a tangent, so I suffice to link you to an explanation of Federal Headship.

and am deeply worried that your all loving god will not care if I suffer an eternity in the absence of his ultimate love.

Who said he doesn't care? Indeed, he cared enough to send his own Son so that you needn't suffer. If a just magistrate can care and be sorrowful that he must punish wrong doing, why cannot God? Indeed, Ezekial 18:23 & 32 say that is the case.

Come on, you know this crap. There are plenty of denominations of Christianity that have different doctrines

Nathan, if you read more carefully you will note the word 'necessarily' in my sentence. I did not say that there are no differences, I just made the point that different denominations are not necessarily holding different doctrines. Some do, yes, but not necessarily, and for the most part, the mainline protestant denominations (I think it's questionable to say that Mormonism and Jehovah' Witnesses are just 'denominations' of protestant Christianity, but that's actually quite irrelevant at this point) all hold the same core doctrines. You could walk into a Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian or Pentecostal church (and many more) and they would most likely all affirm the Nicene and Apostle's creeds. Indeed, according to the source for this oft-cited statistic, over half of these 34000 are simply independent churches with no greater denominational affiliation. The figure is also a world-wide figure which take into account cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries (that means, for example, the Anglican church in Australia is counted separately to the Anglican church in Kenya). The same stats show only 1200 denominations in North America, and remembering that this is including independent, unaffiliated churches who may very well believe the same things as one another, the figure starts to lose it's impact! Thus, it is highly misleading to suggest that there are 34000 different version of Christianity.

People get killed, everyday, over there different ideas about the bible.

Not quite. Sure, people are killed for faith – the average number of Christians martyred each year is around 171 000. And sure, there is sectarian conflict, but I think it's overly simplistic to suggest that it's purely about interpretation. In general is is much deeper and is cultural. Take the conflict in Northern Ireland – it would be foolish to say it was about transubstantiation or something like that – not only was it heavily political, the religious aspect was primarily a cultural. I think you would have a very difficult time showing that Christians are killing each other everyday over interpretation disputes!

he would have made it easy for people to understand and not mix rules with non rules

I think it's pretty clear when law and instruction is being given.

If i go into a class room most of the time I will find a nice dotted list of dosand don'ts, simple not much room for interpretation. I don't expect to see a big story and the kids are told figure out what the dos and the don't are from that.

Again, I think you're still making the false assumption that it's all about me and what I should and shouldn't do. And in any case, plenty of teachers use stories and narratives to teach children and allow children to learn about issues.

Riiiiiiigghht this makes perfect sense..so he sent his (only)son down to earth, then lets him get killed for shit we did that He(God) had full knowledge of us doing in the first place and caused the problem to begin with. Yep perfectly logical…not.

You're correct – your summary here is logically flawed. You seem to have made the same kind of Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that I pointed out to Andrew above. It's logically flawed to assert that God caused the problem. No, humanity is wholly responsible for it's actions.

Because human sacrifice is wrong, and they all say that. So which one is right?

Just so I can be clear who you're referring to here – who is 'they'?

If he cared he wouldn't need to do that in the first place

How so?

isn't it funny how he sends his son to forgive us of all the sins and yet He(god) and his son are still quite happen to send us to burn in hell forever for not following is crappy written book, and people still suffer.

If someone continues to rebel against him and his authority, and continues to reject his payment, that's on them. God is just, and so sin must be punished – if one chooses to reject the offer of Jesus to take that punishment, then they'll have to bear that themselves.

Or not put the temptation there in the first place.

This too mistakes sin as actions rather than attitudes. Sure, actions are borne out of attitudes, and specifically then sinful actions are borne out of sinful (rebellious) attitudes, but I don't see how one can 'tempt' attitudes. Can a parent, or a government remove temptation for a rebellious attitude? Would you actually condone that?
So you see, even if it wasn't the 'fruit' there would be no avoiding calling people to follow and trust him at some point. Your comment then, is quite simplistic and misguided I think.

Are you still going to a believe a in a magic sky daddy that you think looks over you and loves you when you are 80? How about Santa Clause? I can also make a bet Andrew/and most of us will be a atheist when we are 80, that is of coarse unless there is some real scientific evidence for a God but I doubt it.

It's interesting to see that a number of high profile thinkers who became atheists during their adolescence later returned to faith: http://spiritualmeanderings.wordpress.com/2010/05…

Hold your trigger finger there cowboy – this is the second time in a week you've shot off the 'argument from authority' accusation when I've made no such thing. I said nothing at all like "they're high profile, came back, so it must be true" now did I? No – I just said it was an interesting trend to see.

Because it's interesting.