How the heck should I know? I am neither omnipotent nor omniscient. If I were one of those two, then I'd tell you how. Though I should warn you, an infinite number of my infinite possible solutions would be incomprehensible to you.
You're making an inscrutable claim. If you expect me to scrutinize my beliefs based off it, then I need a way to scrutinize the claim. Even if you're 100% right, I have no way of knowing it, and so can't act on it or draw any conclusions based on it.
Definition of omnipotent. I'm not talking about paradoxes like making a rock bigger than I can lift. Though, there is a significant percentage of religious people who think god can do that too.
I linked you to 6 different definitions of omnipotent. So simply saying "definition of omnipotent" uncited is not sufficient to tell me how you are approaching omnipotence.
"I'd figure it out if I were omnipotent" claim is just baseless speculation.
Really, Mooby, you are putting monumental limits on your god. Which kind of takes him from God (capital G) to just a god (lower case g), not a whole lot different than any of the other small gods you reject out of hand.
No, I'm putting monumental limits on you
. You're saying that if you
were omnipotent, you would do X. In other words, you're a being that's not omnipotent and not omniscient viewing the universe from an extremely limited perspective who is making inscrutable claims about how you'd do things differently.
Are you saying your god (now lower case g) cannot defy physics? I thought god wrote the rules. I guess that throws out all manner of miracle.
If you mass produce a car that violates the laws of physics, then that means that the laws of physics do not hold, which means that the laws of physics aren't actually the laws of physics. Congrats, by inventing your car you've made it impossible for humans to science.
Miracles are single violations of natural laws that therefore defy scientific investigation. The car you propose would be part of the natural world, and thus would redefine the natural laws, rather than be an exception to the natural laws. I believe God can (and does) perform miracles; I don't believe He's going to make physics-defying cars a commonplace occurrence.
I would say the idea of existing outside time and space is intrinsically impossible and nonsense. In what sense is a moth that does not eat your clothes intrinsically impossible? Lots of moth larvae do not eat cloth. I find that utterly plausible. In what sense is a gravity defying car not a miracle and instead nonsense? Or the sun dimming only for the driver? It seems to be to me that is a miracle on lower order than, say, the sun standing still in the sky at noon, especially given how we understand the motion of the planets.
Why would you say existing outside time and space are impossible and nonsense?
As for moth larvae, I'm talking about the specific species that does eat clothes, and I'm talking on a rather small-scale Year Of Hell type example.
After accepting all that baloney (in one interpretation or another) you suddenly find skepticism when I suggest your god might have the ability to do things differently. You say that nobody can say anything about god unless they have a plausible explanation. Right.
You haven't read too many of my posts if you think I've "suddenly" found skepticism.
And no, you don't "suggest" God might have the ability to do things differently. You're outright claiming that it's so, and that God should be held responsible for things not
being different. However, you do not have an omnipotent perspective, which is why I'm questioning how exactly you know things would be better if they were different. If you want to play back-seat driver to the universe, I'd like to see at least some indication you know how to drive.
The things I believe are based in thousands of years of religious tradition discussed extensively by people a lot smarter than me with the common goal of uncovering the truths of the universe. Your comments are inscrutable claims from someone who doesn't believe in the concepts he's commenting on, and who is making claims about it that don't reflect what believers actually believe. If you expect me to abandon my theological beliefs for your assertions, you will have to give me some sort of basis on which to do so. Simply claiming you'd figure out a way to be better at omnipotence were you omnipotent with nothing to back it up just doesn't cut it.
Okay, then how about you look in the mirror with your new skepticism? Focus it on the bible and Catholic doctrine for a change. Let me know how long that lasts.
About 15 years so far, with the skepticism reaching it's peak about 4-5 years ago.
I cannot see how that matters. It appears they were held responsible once it was apparent they had the ability to do otherwise and chose to not make things safer. At that point standards were made.
So the standards were applied retroactively?
your wiki article.
I agree that it is possible. But I disagree with it's built in assumptions. He starts off with god, and a good one at that:
Leibniz' solution casts God as a kind of "optimizer" of the collection of all original possibilities: Since He is good and omnipotent, and since He chose this world out of all possibilities, this world must be good—in fact, this world is the best of all possible worlds.
Bold mine. For me, that begs the question.
In what way does it beg the question? Leibniz does not go on to conclude that God is good and omnipotent.
I do not understand your question. Please clarify so I can answer.
You claim that omniscience is the ability to know every thing that will happen, and that omniscience is the potential to neutralize each of those things.
So the described being has:
- Potential to know A will occur (omniscience)
- Potential to prevent A from happening (omnipotence)
So what forces the being to prevent A from happening? After all, do you do everything you have the potential to do?
Like, using a screwdriver as a prybar? Or a wrench as a hammer?
Sure, those are two examples.
Parallel to that, if we see god as a perfect programmer, there are no outcomes he would not anticipate.
Correct. But again, my point is that we already can accept programmers who anticipate both positive and negative outcomes and program anyways; why then must we logically not accept programmers who perfectly anticipate both positive and negative outcomes and program anyways?