Timeline for Is the argument that God can't be omnipotent, omniscient and all good invalid because omnipotence would let God violate logic
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2021 at 19:00 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | If you allow God to violate logic then 100% of logical arguments fall apart... You say there is no positive integer x such that x+2=1. God says yes there is, it's apple. You say apple isn't a positive integer and besides, apple+2 isn't 1. God says you're still wrong because how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real? And God is right because he can form true statements from any words he likes. | |
| Dec 13, 2021 at 14:59 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 12, 2021 at 11:59 | comment | added | Geoffrey Thomas♦ | 'God can't be omnipotent, omniscient and all good' is not an argument, it is a statement or a claim. | |
| Dec 12, 2021 at 11:58 | comment | added | user48562 | I'm not very widely read on philosophy of religion, but I know Swinburne always assumes case 1, and presents it as if that assumption is entirely uncontroversial. | |
| Dec 12, 2021 at 3:44 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: -1 | |
| Dec 12, 2021 at 3:34 | answer | added | Lawnmower Man | timeline score: -1 | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 21:37 | answer | added | akostadinov | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 18:39 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | There are a couple of words basically designed for God: Ineffable, unfathomable. For a reason. There is also a special place for people who ask too many questions. You see, everything has been taken care of. There is nothing to see here. Please move along, won't you. | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 17:29 | answer | added | Susan C. Olenski | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 16:32 | answer | added | SonOfThought | timeline score: -1 | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 15:16 | history | edited | Joseph Hirsch | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body; edited title
|
| Dec 11, 2021 at 12:46 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 16, 2021 at 3:06 | |||||
| Dec 11, 2021 at 12:40 | answer | added | curiousdannii | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 12:30 | comment | added | curiousdannii | Does this answer your question? Is God either immoral or not omnipotent? | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 10:46 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | You're essentially providing a rebuttal to an argument, but then you're asking about the argument instead of the rebuttal. If you want to ask about the argument, then the rebuttal is irrelevant. If you want to present a rebuttal, then the question about the argument is irrelevant. Those seem like 2 very distinct questions that would probably best have been asked in separate question posts (if both are on-topic). It would also help to clearly define and provide a reference for the argument - "God can't have all 3 omni attributes" is the conclusion to the argument, not the argument itself. | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 10:40 | answer | added | NotThatGuy | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 9:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1469592836253356037 | ||
| Dec 11, 2021 at 3:51 | comment | added | RodolfoAP | The key difference between God and any human is the power of controlling causality (miracles, création, superpowers, production of first cause, etc. ). That implies violating logic. If God wouldn't control causality, he would just be a common John Doe. | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 3:03 | answer | added | anonymous | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 0:01 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Dec 10, 2021 at 23:32 | answer | added | Ewan | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 10, 2021 at 20:08 | answer | added | MathematicalPhysicist | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 10, 2021 at 18:16 | answer | added | Speakpigeon | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 10, 2021 at 18:06 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | God is omnipotent and thus he can violate logic but he is also benevolent and thus choose not to do it. | |
| Dec 10, 2021 at 17:33 | answer | added | Dcleve | timeline score: 16 | |
| Dec 10, 2021 at 16:59 | comment | added | Lucretius | Ah, the answer to that one is much easier. It is used in entry level University courses to get students thinking... not as a presentation of a definitive answer. | |
| Dec 10, 2021 at 16:57 | comment | added | Joseph Hirsch | If there is something I would be interested in still, it is that I have seen students who come out of University philosophy courses thinking that this was a very powerful argument against the existence of a certain type of god. In fact, it is basically Neil deGrasse Tysons "explanation." Is it used in University settings as such an argument, or more as an tool to pick apart? | |
| Dec 10, 2021 at 16:57 | comment | added | Lucretius | I don't know if its purpose is to point out the limitations of logical arguments so much as it is to point out the incomprehensibility (or incoherence) of god. For the logical argument to be "limited" by this "omni" presentation of god one would need some kind of evidence that such a thing exists. However, if such a thing does not exist there would be no example by which to demonstrate a limitation in the logic. | |
| Dec 10, 2021 at 16:54 | comment | added | Conifold | Omnipotence by itself can already be argued incoherent along these lines (creating a stone one cannot lift, etc.), and has been so argued to death, see e.g. SEP, Omnipotence for a survey. I doubt we can add anything new here. | |
| S Dec 10, 2021 at 16:00 | review | First questions | |||
| Dec 10, 2021 at 18:17 | |||||
| S Dec 10, 2021 at 16:00 | history | asked | Joseph Hirsch | CC BY-SA 4.0 |