View Single Post
Old 1st June 2010, 04:27 PM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Post #2

OK its official. Davo really does want to take on the ne plus ultra of magic wands. He really does want to put himself in the position of being prognosticator of how God could and could not act. Actually I’m not convinced that he should be burdened with the fakery put upon his back by the person who typed out the “paradox” he is being asked to defend and which I am going to reveal as a sham. Or to make clear my sympathy towards his position by way of analogy Davo is to Iron Chariot as Puzzle is to Shift*
*See The Last Battle – CS Lewis 1956

In this slightly longer post I will (naturally) now take the gloves off and make the first of my three planned and proactive assault stages.
This post weighs into the theme of relatedness between the concept of “possessing knowledge” and “possessing ability”.
I have four substantive posts after this one to cover my remaining two themes which are…. *pregnant pause*….hmmm, I might leave myself some elbow room.

Davo says it is the task of his opponent as to show that an omnipotent and omniscient god is logical. This is partly true but in seeking to defend a wiki page proposition Dave need not direct all his efforts at attempting defensive arguments. He is not handicapped by the limitation to show only the positives he feels are logically in his favor – he is perfectly entitled to attack logical negatives he feels are present in my case. Likewise, my case necessarily includes proofs that my opponent’s position is illogical.

If I can convince the readers that omniscience and omnipotence are not mutually exclusive in logic then I will have done so. That’s how logic works. If presented with a binary choice worded like this – “God is either Omnipotent OR Omniscient” the logical thinker should ask themselves whether a third or fourth or fifth alternative is available and so forth.
In law, where a suspect is charged with murder, the case does not stand or fall on one side proving that they “did it”. A suspect may WIN an acquittal by taking the time and effort to prove that an alternative exists – a logical alternative – another suspect. And that is the logical path I am taking here.

If I can persuade Davo and all the readers here that an alternative exists to the false dilemma inherent in the Iron Chariot proposition, then I will not only have proven that the co-existence Omniscience and Omnipotence is “logical” but I will simultaneously have proven that it is not “illogical”. And THAT is how logic works. If a thing is NOT illogical then by default it can claim to be logical – and vice versa - remembering of course that we are talking about a theoretical concept.

A quick word about the point that this is a theoretical concept. We all owe it to ourselves and to the cause of “reason” that we not bring any AvT baggage to the table in this case.
Whether or not you are an atheist or otherwise is irrelevant to how you decide – This debate is a thought experiment about a concept – knowledge and how that knowledge is used by a Being who, in the context of this debate has at His disposal all available knowledge. This verb – “to know” is just one of is abilities. He has any ability He wishes when He wants, in any degree of ability He wants without limit. I encourage readers to bear this in mind for the duration of this debate. This is not a debate about the existence of God. It is a debate about the characteristics and versatility of knowledge. It has nothing to do with Davo’s faith that there is no God to debate and I reject unconditionally the quasi-strawman claim that my position is related to the AvT agenda.

In fact I’m surprised that the name Polkinghorne is mentioned at all – AT ALL! It amounts to an invitation for me to draw on sources such as Michel Onfray and get bogged down in atheology versus theology. I decline that red herring invitation and draw readers BACK to the philosophical debate at hand. BTW Davo, you could have at least told the readers the actual title of the book by Polkinghorne you incorrectly assumed I was drawing upon. IE – You could have referenced the reference you accused me of referencing.

(cont. Split post to meet character limit rather than word limit)