Actual questions from a real athiest!

[Biarien]

Oh, I forgot to post the stuff on the rock paradox! My apologies. Here it is:

http://www.geocities.com/paradox_berrin/eng-6.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

 

[Biarien]

In addition, the following is a post from GameFAQs (I'm sure some of the users here have at leat heard of it). I take no credit for this other than copying and saving it. I don't even understand it. But I'm sure someone will.
________________

From: Polusplagchnos | Posted: 1/4/2004 1:03:32 PM

It is fairly obvious that the burrito question is built upon the same form as the traditional rock question, showing that these kinds of questions are formed around the same premises, only varying with respect to instantiation. Also, there are actually two levels at which assumptions are being made: a basic first-order deduction is attempted with its own assumptions, but this under the prior metalevel assumption of the semantics of omnipotency. Let's tackle the problem of the first-order deduction first.

In these kinds of arguments, it is not difficult to show that the premises involved are:

1. God is omnipotent
2. For any person P who is omnipotent, there is no action A such that P cannot do A.

Now, A can be any of a myriad of actions, from lifting that ol’ rock to heating up that burrito to making mountains with slopes that only run uphill. Whatever it is, generally A is specifically constructed to be paradoxical in its suggestion, but explicitly contradictory in its actuality—it is paradoxical but contradictory in the same sense that Russell’s paradox in Frege’s set theory and the paradoxes generated along the lines of the Epimenidean paradox. However, this is where most people fail in producing a natural deduction in their argument, but miss a crucial step: what they fail to understand is that they are making another assumption, specifically:

3. There is an action A such that God cannot do A.

This is the upshot of what happens when someone suggests a specific A, since what they are doing is performing an existential elimination of this existential assumption. And that is precisely where the logical fallacy develops, since by not realizing this step is being performed, they misconstrue just what is being revealed as the source of the contradiction. We will continue.

Existential eliminations require a subproof the assumption of which is an instantiation of the existential operative only within the subproof itself. For this subproof, we will use “eating a burrito too hot to be eaten” for our A:

4. God cannot eat a burrito too hot to be eaten.

Eliminating the universal of 2 with respect to God, we get the following:

5. There is no action A such that God cannot do A.

This is logically equivalent to

5b. Every action A is such that God can do A.

We will again eliminate the universal of 2, but now with respect to 4.

6. God can eat a burrito too hot to be eaten.

4 and 6 form an explicit contradiction, and thus their conjunction together is not an actualizable situation (given a classical metaphysics). In sentential derivation, this demonstrates that our assumption which precipitated this contradiction is false, and thus the negation of that assumption is true. This is the key to understanding where the criticisms go wrong and commit a fallacy. The assumption that is therefore false is not either of our premises (1 and 2), but is instead our assumption at 3. Thus, it follows from existential elimination of the assumption of 3 that

7. There is no action A.

And, as should be clear by now, this conclusion is entirely coherent with respect to the premises. In fact, it is entailed by the premises. To render this conclusion even more semantically: the point of this is to show that all of these suggested actions for A are not possible as actions—something we already pretty much understand from their construction as paradoxical. Thus, as impossible actions they are not included within the scope of the universal of 2 and cannot be used to demonstrate the incoherency or inconsistency of the concept of omnipotency. This brings us to the second assumption being made.

When people suggest this form of argument as a refutation of some classical description of God, or even God’s existence, and actually believe that the argument works as a refutation, what they are implicitly assuming at a level above the deduction is that omnipotency also contains within its domain contradictory situations: anything that is omnipotent should be able to actualize contradictory situations. Thus, if God is omnipotent, he should be able to eat a burrito too hot to be eaten, he should be able to create mountains with slopes only running uphill, or he should be able to create another God (on the premise that God is One). But the mere presence of the contradiction leads people to believe that God cannot do these things, meaning that God is not omnipotent. But that is precisely a fallacious conclusion if the domain of omnipotency includes contradictory situations. Here is why. If these situations are contradictory, then God being omnipotent and able to bring about these contradictory situations can bring about these situations, even if they, in fact, are contradictory. That is simply the power of omnipotency given the premise that it does include the capacity to actualize contradictory situations. So here is the second fallacy being committed: not accepting the implied premise that omnipotency includes the actualization of contradictory situations; since, if this were accepted as within the capacity of omnipotency, then there would not be any further contradiction (as though, again, given the premise this is any kind of problem) to reveal any incoherence in omnipotency.

Now, if a person did not commit this second fallacy and understood that omnipotency did not include the capacity for actualizing contradictory situations, then it is clear from the correct deduction that there is no problem with omnipotency, as it is not an incoherent or “ridiculous” suggestion that it is possible to have the capacity to perform any action and this possibility is actualized in God. But, as it is, most people do confuse themselves by implicitly making the second assumption but fallaciously not carrying it to its logical conclusions and then further compound the problem by not properly working the deduction.

For example, consider the following deduction, and tell me if you think there is a fallacy being committed.

1: There is a set, called S, constructed as the following: {Adam, George, Tom, Jill}.
Assumption 2: Beth is an element in S.
3. There is no element named ‘Beth’ in S. (from comparing 2 with 1)
4. This is a contradiction.
Conclusion 5. There is no set S.

This, simply, is the form of the error being committed. It is essential to understand that an assumption introduces a subproof, and that the subproof occurs at a different level from that of the premises. If the subproof generates a contradiction, then it is the assumption that introduced that subproof which is negated. If this procedure is not followed, we get erroneous conclusions.

For clarification, I’ll reproduce the proof above without the commentary, but with the proper set up as in a Fitch style derivation.

| 1. God is omnipotent.
| 2. For any omnipotent person P, there is no action A such that P cannot do A.
|—
| | 3. There is an action A such that God cannot do A. (Assumption)
| |—
| | | 4. God cannot eat a burrito too hot to be eaten. (Assuming an A)
| | |—
| | | 5. There is no action A such that God cannot do A. (Universal Elimination on 2)
| | | 6. Every action A is such that God can do A. (A logical equivalence of 5, which can be proven easily)
| | | 7. God can eat a burrito too hot to be eaten. (Universal Elimination of 6)
| | | 8. Contradiction (4 and 7 contradict)
| | 9. Contradiction (Existential Elimination from 4-8, the subproof, and 3, the existential)
| 10. There is no action A such that God cannot do A. (Negation Introduction, from 3-9)

Note also that 10 is immediately entailed by 1 and 2 using Universal Elimination of 2.

 

[Biarien]

I hope this is of some help. I'd love to hear how things go, and provide any help I can. ^___^

 

[fields316_2000]

thanks alot man! i really appreciate it. i have yet to hear back from him from monday so ill keep ya'll posted!

 

[Biarien]

No problem. I hope all goes well.

 

[The Midge]

On the rock paradox.

God is an infinite omnipotent God.
Therefore any rock that is too big for God is an infinitely big rock.
Now where would you like God to move the rock to?

 

[Biarien]

On the rock paradox.

God is an infinite omnipotent God.
Therefore any rock that is too big for God is an infinitely big rock.
Now where would you like God to move the rock to?

Haha.

 

[cabrooks98]

 

[boramerewrath]

i sent my athiest friend an email listing his faults and he replyed with these questions - help me answer them! it might be the begining of him finding salvation...

A personal thought....

You may have better sucess with your quesiton if you would post it in smaller chunks. It is difficult for a person to respond to a multi-complex question. Maybe group the related ones and use more than one thread.

This is only my personal suggestion.... which is worth only as much as you paid for it....(nothing)

I still plan on answering a part of it....

 

[Biarien]

fields316_2000, any news to speak of yet?

On a side note, this is my 400th post.

 

[boramerewrath]

THE PERFECTION-vs.-CREATION ARGUMENT
3 is wrong.
The reason three is wrong is that things that are Gods nature, are expressed in his perfection’s themselves. Such as, since God is Love, God express’s his love through "loving". A perfect being is perfect within Himself, and the actions which He takes are in character with his perfection’s.


PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
4 is wrong
The reason four is wrong is for the same reason three is wrong in the PERFECTION-vs.-CREATION ARGUMENT.

 

[boramerewrath]

ARGUMENT FROM THE SELF
2.) Since God occupies all space, past, present, and
future, there is nothing that is NOT God.

2 is also wrong.

Pantheism is the view that God "is all" and "all is God". The word pantheism comes from two Greek words – "pan" ("all") and "theos" ("God"). In pantheism, all reality is viewed as being infused with divinity. [This is the view your previously atheistic friend is espousing: Great job, you have just moved your atheistic friend to pantheism! Just one step closer to the theos of monotheism!!] The god of pantheism is an impersonal, amoral "it" as opposed to the personal, moral "He" of Christianity. The distinction between the Creator and the creation is completely obliterated in this view.

A major problem of pantheism is that it fails to adequately deal with the existence of real evil in the world. If God is the essence of "all" life forms in creation, then one must conclude that both good and evil stem from the same essence (God). The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that God is good and not evil. The God of the Bible is light, ad "in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5; cf. Habakkuk 1:13, Matthew 5:48). First John 1:5 is particularly cogent in the Greek, which translates literally: "And darkness there isnot in him, not in any way." John could not have said it more forcefully.

Jeff Amano and Norman Geisler provide an excellent example of how evil is problematic for the pantheistic and atheistic view of God:

QUOTE: "When Francis Shaeffer spoke to a group of students at Cambridge University, there was a [pantheistic] Hindu who began criticizing Christianity. Shaeffer said, "Am I not correct in saying that on the basis of your system, cruelty and non-cruelty are ultimately equal, that there is no intrinsic difference between them?"

The Hindu agreed. One of the students immediately caught on to what Schaeffer was driving at. He picked up a kettle of boiling water that he was going to use to make tea and held the steaming pot over the Indian’s head.

This young Hindu looked up and asked the student what he was doing.

The student said with a cold yet gentle finality, "There is no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty." Thereupon the Hindu walked out into the night. [Norman L Geisler and Jeff Amano, The Infiltration of the New Age (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Pub, 1990), p.20]

 

[boramerewrath]

ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn’t believe in
him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell.

ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn’t believe in
him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell.

Your friend seems to be reaching to blame God for his just punishment for his own actions.

This may take a moment, but I would like to share a couple of concepts at this point. Sorry to seem so wordie.


ON HELL
God has not wrought evil in your friends heart. God simply allows the evil will of your friend to do what it does naturally.

It is important to understand that the will of the unconverted is captive to the evil desires of the heart and to Satan, for Paul wrote that we should warn people to escape from the snare of the devil. "having been held captive by him to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:26). God does not force a man to do evil. When the church speaks of a man as doing evil by necessity, it does not mean that God takes a man and overpowers him like a thief might do. Rather, men do evil "spontaneously and with a desirous willingness." Thus, to harden a man’s heart, God may have to do no more than simply to abandon him to his own desires and lusts. Yet such an action by God does render the man’s sinful actions as necessary.

However, when God works in the heart of a man, such as your friend, to bring them to faith and understanding, it is also not coercion, but "the will, being changed and sweetly breathed on by the Spirit of God, desires and acts not from compulsion, but responsively, from pure willingness, inclination, and accord."

Also, in #2 your friend assumes the place of God by claiming to be all-knowing himself. He is asserting to know the mind of God. He is also assuming to know that God has condemned him to Hell. He mistakenly fails to acknowledge that God has provided a path of eternal freedom for him, and in his arrogance he may choose to thumb his nose at God, and decide for himself to not take it. Since both paths are at his feet, that is indeed, his choice.


*******************Hope for the Future********
Keep in mind that many "atheists" I have had deep, long term discussions with, in reality end up not being a discussion on whether there is a God or not, their really deep issue with "God" is that He seems so Narrow-Minded in providing only one way of redemption. When I reach this deeper level of frustration with an "atheist", I ask them to examine the deeper question of the narrow-mindedness of God who provides only one way of redemption.

We remember the words of Jesus when He said, "Broad is the way and wide is the gate that leads to destruction and many are they who go in thereby. But straight is the way and narrow is the gate that leads to life and few are those who find it." (Matthew. 7:13). This is where I help them ask the question, What kind of a God would have such a narrow gate? The question implies a serious accusation; that God has not done enough to provide redemption for mankind.

To this I reply, "Let us examine the accusation from a hypothetical perspective. Let us suppose that there is a God who is altogether holy and righteous. Suppose that God freely creates mankind and gives to mankind the gift of life. Suppose He sets His creatures in an ideal setting and gives them the freedom to participate in all of the glories of the creative order with freedom. Suppose, however, that God imposes one small restriction upon them, warning them that if they violate that restriction, they will die. Would such a God have the right to impose such a restriction with the penalty of forfeiture of the gift of life if His authority is violated?

Suppose that for no just cause the ungrateful creatures disobeyed the restriction the moment God’s back was turned. Suppose when He discovered their violation instead of killing the, He redeemed them. Suppose the descendants of the first transgressors broadly and widely increased their disobedience and hostility toward their creator to the point that the whole world became rebellious to God, and each person in it "did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges. 21:25). Suppose god still determined to redeem these people and freely gave special gifts to one nation of people in order that, through them, the whole world would be blessed. Suppose God delivered this people form poverty and enslavement to a ruthless Egyptian Pharaoh. Suppose this privileged nation, as soon as it was liberated, rose up in further rebellion against their God and their liberator. Suppose they took His law and violated it consistently.

Suppose that God, still intent upon redemption, sent specially endowed messengers or prophets to plead with His people to return to Him. Suppose the people killed the divine messengers and mocked their message. Suppose the people then began to worship idols of stone and things fashioned by their own hands. Suppose these people invented religions that were contrary to the truth of the real God and worshiped creatures rather than the Creator.

Suppose in an ultimate act of redemption God Himself became incarnate in the person of His son. Suppose this so came into the world not to condemn the world, but to redeem the world. But suppose this Son of God were rejected, slandered, mocked, tortured, and murdered. Yet, suppose that god accepted the murder of His own Son as punishment for the sins of the very persons who murdered Him. Suppose this god offered to His son’s murderers total amnesty, complete forgiveness, transcendent peace that comes with the cleansing of all fault, victory over death and an eternal life of complete felicity.

Suppose God gave these people as a free gift the promise of a future life that would be without pain, without sickness, without death, and without tears. Suppose that God said to these people, "There is one thing that I demand. I demand that you honor my only-begotten Son and that you worship and serve Him alone." Suppose God did all of that, would you be willing to say to Him, "God, that’s not fair, you haven’t done enough"?

If man has in fact committed cosmic treason against God, what reason could we possibly have that god should provide any way of redemption? In light of the universal rebellion against God, the issue is not why is there only one way, but "WHY IS THERE ANY WAY AT ALL"?

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Hi Fields, I can answer those.

 

[fields316_2000]

ill keep in mind the suggestion of breaking up the questions into smaller chunks/different threads..

heres an update.

he got most of the information i sent him along with a few links to a few references. he said he was actually impressed and could NOT respond right away. he didnt just want to read through it just to argue..he wanted to read it understand it, honestly test it and then respond. he said if it hits home he'll let me know, and i told him when he replys i have more answers waiting for him within the minitue. he seemed pretty surprized and since i didnt come at him waving my fist pounding a bible about him being a no good sinner he is more receptive..thanks guys- you guys are pretty on the money with these answers!

 

[LilAngelHeart]

How about this?

1. The universe had a beginning
2. All beginings have a cause
3. There is nothing apart from the universe
4. Therfore, the universe cannot exist

or this?

1. The universe is eternal (has no beginning)
2. 2nd law of thermodynamics says energy always moves
towards a less useful form
3. The amount of usable energy in the universe should be
zero since the universe extends infinitly into the past

When it comes down to it, you can't have creation without a creator, just as you can't have a painting without a painter.

-phil

Good post, I like that!

 

[Biarien]

heres an update.

he got most of the information i sent him along with a few links to a few references. he said he was actually impressed and could NOT respond right away. he didnt just want to read through it just to argue..he wanted to read it understand it, honestly test it and then respond. he said if it hits home he'll let me know, and i told him when he replys i have more answers waiting for him within the minitue. he seemed pretty surprized and since i didnt come at him waving my fist pounding a bible about him being a no good sinner he is more receptive..thanks guys- you guys are pretty on the money with these answers!

That's wonderful. I'm glad to hear that.

 

[Lucubratus]

Also, ask him if God does not excist, how can he prove it as it is not possible to prove a negative. Oddly, I've never gotten an answer to that one.

I like that!

 

[KGirl]

"ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn’t believe in
him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell.

Comments: (Sure you may say I have a choice, but I
think I`ve proven already that I really don`t. I`m
simply fulfilling the will of God by being an atheist
aren`t I? If I`m not, I shouldn`t exist: For God would
have known that before I was created that I wouldn`t
believe in him.)"

Then, wouldn't that mean that he would believe in him? If he were to believe that his purpose would be to not believe in him? If that's his theory, I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like there's still hope for this guy.

 

[KGirl]

"GOD's omnipresence (ever -present)

ARGUMENT FROM THE SELF
1.) If God exists, he is omnipresent (occupying all
space).
2.) Since God occupies all space, past, present, and
future, there is nothing that is NOT God.
3.) God therefore, cannot have a sense of the
independent self.
4.) Since God has no sense of the self or non-self, he
cannot have a consciousness.
5.) In conclusion, God cannot have a mind and would
resemble nothing more than the non-conscious Universe."About this one..



Don't forget the Trinity. The Father, the Son, Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, and is on earth.