Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Baby-K]

RÃ*an - thanks for the trouble of answering - apologies for only getting back to you now - I usually go away for weekends, so I hardly ever get to a PC.

[Rían]

No trouble, Baby-K - weekends aren't good for me, either, at least for thoughtful-type posts (I'll do some shorter ones on the other threads for fun). I'll wait for a response from you on what I posted re Abraham before I go any further (if the Lewis quotes don't make sense to you, then the response could be as simple as "huh?" and I'll try to explain better). I'll check back in tomorrow mid-morning (it's 9:30 pm for me now - I think you're 10 hrs ahead of me). See ya!

[Baby-K]

RÃ*an - I see you! Thought you were going to bed???

I'll post a reply to your post later - just need to get my thoughts organised

[Rían]

Actually, that was my husband that logged back on to read one of my posts that I wanted him to look at while I was doing some last-minute laundry! But we're signing off now - time for bed in our corner of the world I'll see you when we're BOTH on Monday (time zones are so funny, aren't they )

[Baby-K]

Yeah - in a paradoxical twist of fate you will spend most of your time in my yesterday

[Rían]

Andúril - I don't see any good coming from talking about my PM to you anymore, so I won't address your latest response to it in any detail. I don't want to use up my time when I think nothing good will come out of it. It was meant to try to help you, but since you don't seem to agree with any of it, it's not worthwhile to me to go over the imaginary nitpicks with you. IMO, you miss the entire point. You said this:

byAndúril
Are you saying that in light of my strong skepticism in this matter, I should contradict my position by pretending that I believe her case is probably real, and therefore offer sympathy or advice? ROFTL!

Now your use of the word "skepticism" indicates that you, too, DO NOT KNOW if it is a hoax or not. So I'll just repeat what I wrote, and you did NOT address (the part about a human life not being worth the risk):

from RÃ*an
OF COURSE it might be a hoax - my whole point is, why take ANY chance of making things worse, BECAUSE "might" goes 2 ways - it might be REAL!!!! A human life is not worth that risk. And even if it IS a hoax, the person is clearly not thinking well to even try a hoax like that.

If you want to talk any more about it, then you can PM or email me. I'd like to end the public aspect of this discussion, because as I said, I don't see it doing any good to anyone. My final word on the matter is that I suggest you re-read my original PM - making sure that you "hear" me saying it in a concerned and loving manner, which is the way I intended it - and think about what I am saying, instead of trying to find logical flaws (there weren't any, BTW )

[Rían]

And I have a bit of time, so I'll wrap up what I wanted to say about omnipotence - both the regular and decaf variety - while I'm waiting for responses to my opening Abraham post.

(note - when I use the word "God", I'm referring to the God of the Bible, not of any other religion).

I don't remember if I started a closing post on this subject or not, and my thread notes only go up to page 20, and I don't feel like paging back to see if I did start, so if I repeat myself, then please forgive me.

I've been thinking alot about why I'm so vehement about this subject, and I've come to the realization that my whole objection lies in the use of the adjectives "strong" and "weak". I understand the definitions, I can even see a need for making up terms for them, but the use of a word such as "weak" to modify a term like "omnipotence" would be hysterically funny if it weren't so tragically inappropriate. And my objection to the use of these adjectives is in 2 areas - (1) the sheer inappropriateness of the term "weak" to describe the incredible power of the most powerful Being in the universe, and (2) the confusion that it might cause some people because of the inappropriateness.

As I said before, what Andúril refers to as "strong omnipotence" - IOW, including those things that are syntactically possible, but inherently illogical and self-contradictory, and thus not able to exist in any reality - I would call something like "impossible/illogical omnipotence" (or "decaf omnipotence" - omnipotence with the power taken out ). Words like "impossible" or "illogical" would be appropriate modifiers for the word "omnipotence" in this scenario, IMO.

What Andúril refers to as "weak omnipotence", I would just call "omnipotence", or possibly "true omnipotence" or "real omnipotence". This is the type of omnipotence that the God described in the Bible has (and it has some MAJOR caffeine ). It is the highest type of power that ANY being CAN POSSIBLY have. God can do anything He wants, and nothing and no one can stop Him! Now who in their right mind would apply a modifier such as "weak" to that type of power? That's what I object to.

So to sum up objection #1, it is an insult to language itself (the purpose of language is to communicate concepts and ideas and thoughts), as well as to God, to say that God has weak omnipotence. And when I say it's an insult to God, I mean that it is a misrepresentation, because of the word "weak" - and that makes me angry, because I, as a Christian, know and love Him. It's like if you insulted and lied about my husband or my family or my friends - it makes me angry that they would be falsely represented.

(My personal theory on the matter is that the person that came up with the terms accidentally switched the two modifiers around, and by the time he/she saw the error, it was too late to correct it! )

Now the second reason why I react so vehemently against the use of these terms is because it might confuse some Christians who are young in the faith. They might think "OMGoodness, I guess God isn't as strong as He could be ... He can't do everything He wants to!". Now that is a flat-out lie. As Lewis says so well, when talking about phrases that are syntactically possible but intrinsically impossible,

from The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis
....meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can". It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities.

So God IS the most powerful Being in existence, and God IS as powerful as it is possible to be.

So I would ask those people that use the terms "strong" and "weak" omnipotence the following: "Can any being that can ever exist in reality, IYO, ever have "strong omnipotence?" I believe that they would have to answer "no". Then the next question that I would ask would be: "What term would you use for the highest level of power that any being that can exist in reality can ever have? I believe they would have to answer "weak omnipotence". Then I would have to say that I believe that the adjective "weak" is a pretty poor choice, and one that has the danger of implying exactly the opposite of what the reality of the situation is.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
IMO, you miss the entire point.

Oh no, what am I to do.

More:
Now your use of the word "skepticism" indicates that you, too, DO NOT KNOW if it is a hoax or not.

Some people would use the string of letters "duh" in this case.

More:
So I'll just repeat what I wrote

Argumentum ad nauseum.

More:
OF COURSE it might be a hoax - my whole point is, why take ANY chance of making things worse, BECAUSE "might" goes 2 ways - it might be REAL!!!! A human life is not worth that risk. And even if it IS a hoax, the person is clearly not thinking well to even try a hoax like that.

I am not obligated to "make things better"; even if I am certain that the situation is not a hoax.

More:
If you want to talk any more about it, then you can PM or email me. I'd like to end the public aspect of this discussion, because as I said, I don't see it doing any good to anyone. My final word on the matter is that I suggest you re-read my original PM - making sure that you "hear" me saying it in a concerned and loving manner, which is the way I intended it - and think about what I am saying, instead of trying to find logical flaws (there weren't any, BTW )

Oh but I did "hear" you saying it in a "concerned" and "loving" manner. And since you say that you will speak no more on this matter, I will close by saying that yes, you did actually commit a logical fallacy.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
I've been thinking alot about why I'm so vehement about this subject, and I've come to the realization that my whole objection lies in the use of the adjectives "strong" and "weak". I understand the definitions, I can even see a need for making up terms for them, but the use of a word such as "weak" to modify a term like "omnipotence" would be hysterically funny if it weren't so tragically inappropriate. And my objection to the use of these adjectives is in 2 areas - (1) the sheer inappropriateness of the term "weak" to describe the incredible power of the most powerful Being in the universe, and (2) the confusion that it might cause some people because of the inappropriateness.

Ladies and gentlemen, what RÃ*an can't seem to grasp is the simple point that the "weak" and "strong" qualifiers of omnipotence are meant in relation to eachother. Strong omnipotence is the stronger, i.e. has a greater set of actions, while weak omnipotence is weaker, i.e. has the smaller set of actions. The context is ability.

An analogy: When the Lexus IS200 was launched (or the IS300 for you people in the US), it was called by many motoring journalists the "baby Lexus". This does not mean that the IS200 is a baby, or displayes similar attributes to a baby. It is meant in relation to the GS300 and LS430, two of its bigger stablemates.

Therefore, in labeling weak omnipotence, one does not suggest that the being in question is "weak" (although that can be contested), it merely differentiates itself from another "stronger" omnipotence.

More:
As I said before, what Anduril refers to as "strong omnipotence" - IOW, including those things that are syntactically possible, but inherently illogical and self-contradictory, and thus not able to exist in any reality - I would call something like "impossible/illogical omnipotence" (or "decaf omnipotence" - omnipotence with the power taken out ). Words like "impossible" or "illogical" would be appropriate modifiers for the word "omnipotence" in this scenario, IMO.

Here is RÃ*an's misunderstanding. Those people who advocate strong omnipotence do not believe that all things must be logically coherent in order to be extant. Therefore, their position is that is incorrect to say that inherently illogical and self-contradictory concepts necessarily cannot obtain. RÃ*an jokes about "decaf omnipotence", but the point that she clearly misses is that strong omnipotence does not indicate a smaller set of actions. Weak omnipotence indicates a smaller set of actions by definition.

More:
What Anduril refers to as "weak omnipotence", I would just call "omnipotence", or possibly "true omnipotence" or "real omnipotence". This is the type of omnipotence that the God described in the Bible has (and it has some MAJOR caffeine ).

Up until now, RÃ*an has not appealed directly to Scripture to support her claim (or have you, RÃ*an?). I would like for her to quote the relevant passages where specifically weak omnipotence is described.

More:
It is the highest type of power that ANY being CAN POSSIBLY have.

It is my position that it is the only type of power that any being can have. Advocates of strong omnipotence disagree, obviously.

More:
God can do anything He wants, and nothing and no one can stop Him!

Would you suggest, RÃ*an, that any action God cannot do is an action that God does not want to do? Or similarily, any action that God does not want to do, God cannot do? Or would you say that God can do what he does not want to do? Please clarify.

More:
Now who in their right mind would apply a modifier such as "weak" to that type of power? That's what I object to.

Who in their right mind would qualify the Lexus IS200 as a "baby"? Who in their right mind would call a nuclear weapon "Little Boy"?

More:
So to sum up objection #1, it is an insult to language itself (the purpose of language is to communicate concepts and ideas and thoughts), as well as to God, to say that God has weak omnipotence.

I disagree. I have shown why it is acceptable to take a smaller set of actions as a "weaker" set, and a larger set of actions as a "stronger" set. We are dealing with power, or ablility, thus I see no problem whatsoever with the modifiers "weak" and "strong".

[Andúril]

More:
And when I say it's an insult to God, I mean that it is a misrepresentation, because of the word "weak" - and that makes me angry, because I, as a Christian, know and love Him.

It is an insult to language itself (the purpose of language is to communicate concepts and ideas and thoughts), as well as to Lexus, to say that the IS200 is the "baby Lexus". And when I say it's an insult to Lexus, I mean that it is a misrepresentation, because of the word "baby" - and that makes me angry, because I, as a Lexus fan, have driven and enjoyed the IS200.

More:
It's like if you insulted and lied about my husband or my family or my friends - it makes me angry that they would be falsely represented.

It's like if you insulted and lied about the SC430, or all Lexus models, or Toyota (its parent company) - it makes me angry that they would be falsely represented.

More:
(My personal theory on the matter is that the person that came up with the terms accidentally switched the two modifiers around, and by the time he/she saw the error, it was too late to correct it! )

Strong omnipotence cannot possibly be "weaker" than weak omnipotence.

More:
*snip*

So I would ask those people that use the terms "strong" and "weak" omnipotence the following: "Can any being that can ever exist in reality, IYO, ever have "strong omnipotence?" I believe that they would have to answer "no".

Just because someone does not use the explicit term "strong omnipotence" it does not mean that that person does not advocate it.

Now, it is patently absurd that someone who posits a strongly omnipotent god-concept will answer "no".

More:
Then the next question that I would ask would be: "What term would you use for the highest level of power that any being that can exist in reality can ever have? I believe they would have to answer "weak omnipotence".

Those advocating strong omnipotence would answer "strong omnipotence".

More:
Then I would have to say that I believe that the adjective "weak" is a pretty poor choice, and one that has the danger of implying exactly the opposite of what the reality of the situation is.

Too bad that everyone did not answer "no" to the first question.

[Finmandos12]

I will try to prove that strong omnipotence, as defined by Anduril, is illogical.

Its time for (**drumroll**) analogy time! For today's analogy, God is a circle.

Imagine an omnipotent, all-powerful circle (Yes I know its ridiculuous, but it works). Under the definition of "strong omnipotence" this circle is able to be a square, or a triangle, or a pentagon. Does this seem logical? Strong omnipotence means that something could defy its own definition. Strong omnipotent white could be black, etc.

Therefore, the best definition of omnipotence is the "weak omnipotence." God cannot sin, which he could do under "strong omnipotence", because that would be against his definition. God, at least under Judeo-Christian concepts, is perfect. Therefore, if God sinned, he would not be God, just as if a circle was rectanular it would not be a circle.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Finmandos12
Therefore, the best definition of omnipotence is the "weak omnipotence."

Agreed, because it is the only possible type of omnipotence that can exist in reality. And "weak omnipotence" is sure a silly name for it, isn't it!

[Rían]

by Andúril
Who in their right mind would qualify the Lexus IS200 as a "baby"? Who in their right mind would call a nuclear weapon "Little Boy"?

Did "Fat Man" (or whatever the name for the other bomb was) exist in reality? Do the GS300 and LS430 models exist in reality? Yes?? 'Nuff said (as Wayfarer says ).

by Andúril
It's like if you insulted and lied about the SC430, or all Lexus models, or Toyota (its parent company) - it makes me angry that they would be falsely represented.

Do you place the same value on these cars as on a person?

[Rían]

And now, since Finmandos12 has kindly provided a wonderful analogy in "analogy time", RÃ*an will kindly provide a wonderful story in "story time"

Once upon a time, there were 2 fleas, Sasha and Wilbur (note the first letter of the names - they correspond to "strong" and "weak" omnipotence, for your convenience. I aim to please ) Sasha and Wilbur met at the local dog one day and started discussing 'elephants', something that they had both just heard about recently for the first time.

Wilbur: "Wow! I tell ya, Sasha, them elephants sound incredibly powerful!"
Sasha: "Well, yeah, but if you talk about elephants, you need to talk about "strong" and "weak" elephants, you know."
Wilbur: "Um, what?"
Sasha (in an important tone of voice): "Oh yes, strong elephants can do a lot more than weak elephants! They can be both fully an elephant and fully a worm! They can eat a tree so big that they can't eat it! And lots more things that I can make syntactically correct sentences out of!
Wilbur: "Um, what does syntax have to do with the subject at hand?"
Sasha: "And because strong elephants can do more than weak elephants, they are stronger!! *hops off dog and wanders off in search of strong elephants. *
*narrator's note - Sasha will never find a strong elephant, because they do not and cannot exist*
Wilbur: "Hmm, I think I heard someone say that there's an elephant - whoops, a weak elephant! - over across the field there, I think I'll take a look..." *hops off dog and goes to find a "weak" elephant*
*narrator's note - Wilbur WILL find a "weak" elephant, because they DO exist in reality*
Wilbur: *looking at the elephant, which is, in fact, the only type of elephant that can exist* "Geez, that is some honkin' strong "weak elephant"!!!!!!!

*end of story*

[Finmandos12]

Ha ha! Quite amusing.

[Rían]

And illustrates my point, I hope

[Rían]

Originally posted by Andúril
Up until now, RÃ*an has not appealed directly to Scripture to support her claim (or have you, RÃ*an?). I would like for her to quote the relevant passages where specifically weak omnipotence is described.

Would you?

[Andúril]

Finmandos12:
I will try to prove that strong omnipotence, as defined by Anduril, is illogical.

*snip*

What for? Nobody claims that strong omnipotence is a logically sound concept in the first place!

More:
Imagine an omnipotent, all-powerful circle (Yes I know its ridiculuous, but it works). Under the definition of "strong omnipotence" this circle is able to be a square, or a triangle, or a pentagon. Does this seem logical?

No, but then again, it is not supposed to. Advocates of strong omnipotence do not require that a strongly omnipotent being adhere to logic. Sometimes they forget this by contending that they can speak meaningfully and coherently about this being.

More:
Therefore, the best definition of omnipotence is the "weak omnipotence."

*snip*

Only if one holds that everything that exists must adhere to logic.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
Did "Fat Man" (or whatever the name for the other bomb was) exist in reality? Do the GS300 and LS430 models exist in reality? Yes?? 'Nuff said (as Wayfarer says ).

RÃ*an, once again, has missed my point. We are discussing the concepts of omnipotence here. Both weak and strong omnipotence exist conceptually.

More:
Do you place the same value on these cars as on a person?

Has RÃ*an missed this point as well? The purpose of the example was to show that qualification of this nature is not inadequate or innappropriate. In any event, RÃ*an was talking about false misrepresentation, and so was I. Therefore her question is irrelevant.

More:
*snip lovely story*

RÃ*an's story presupposes the necessary universal requirement that everything that exists adheres to logic. Advocates of strong omnipotence, or strong elephants, do not presuppose that same. RÃ*an, please remember this.

RÃ*an:
Would you?

RÃ*an seems to be evading the request. I have not claimed that God is weakly omnipotent, and I have not claimed that God is strongly omnipotent. RÃ*an and others have claimed that weak omnipotence is the most suitable for their god-concept, and I would like for her or others to show me the Scripture that supports their position. I am under no obligation to do this.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Andúril
RÃ*an seems to be evading the request. I have not claimed that God is weakly omnipotent, and I have not claimed that God is strongly omnipotent. RÃ*an and others have claimed that weak omnipotence is the most suitable for their god-concept, and I would like for her or others to show me the Scripture that supports their position. I am under no obligation to do this.

No, I'm not evading the request.... *examines fingernails thoughtfully, gazes out of window*









(hint - Try asking politely - you didn't ask me to show you Scripture about this, you just mentioned that you would like me to. In fact, at this point, try throwing in a compliment, too, because you've been very mean to me *sniff* and you've hurt my feelings *pout* by saying I'm sermonizing, etc. And after I said you looked like Fingolfin, too! You have never said anything nice about me and I don't feel like doing something for you when you haven't even asked.)