Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44
  1. #1
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Omnipotence vs. Science

    1. Contradicting a scientific law requires evidnece.*
    2. An omnipotent being, limited only by that which is logically possible, must be able to contradict any and every scientific law.**
    3. Claiming god, an omnipotent being, exists necessarily contradicts every scientific law.
    Thus, god requires evidence for how he could contradict each and every scientific law.

    Simply stating "he's omnipotent" does us no good because this, itself, is an unsupported claim. When dealing with an unnknown that requires support, we cannot shunt the claim into a category meant to shield it from scrutiny. We cannot claim that the rules don't count or attempt to define the claim in such a way that it gets a free pass from scrutiny.

    Take the speed of light, for example. Einstein discovered that most things cannot travel faster than light. So, to contradict this simple & eloquent law, we need evidence. Scientists are hard at work looking to support hypotheses that some VERY small particles can travel faster than light (or transmit information faster than light). However, saying something like, "There exists a category of thing that can go faster than light and this category is exempt from the requirement of evidence." This is unacceptable. Just as unacceptable is "There exists a category of thing that can go faster than light and this category requires a special set of logical rules that would normally be unacceptable." This is likewise unacceptable because it's simply a more subtle way of claiming exemption from the resonsibility of presenting evidence.

    Discuss.




    * i.e. Claiming things like "things can travel faster than light" or "force DOESN'T equal mass times acceleration" requires evidence otherwise we can simply dismiss them. There is a large body of evidence in support of the claim's opposition.

    ** A god who can't travel faster than light wouldn't be an omnipotent god. He would be a god bound by the laws of physics rather than a god that can set up the laws of physics.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    1. Any empirical claim requires evidnece.*
    ftfy
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  3. #3
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Clive
    1. Any empirical claim requires evidnece.* [And thus there is a category of things that I don't think should require evidence. But I have no way of supporting this and thus it's just another cop out; a way of avoiding responsibility of supporting a claim].
    ftfy to you too, hoss.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    I'm sorry, but this is a silly argument. If you are accepting (for purposes of the argument) that God "wrote the program" (i.e. designed the laws of science) in the first place, in what way is it "unevidenced" to suggest that he can "rewrite the program" (i.e. alter the laws of science) at will. The ability to not be bound by the laws of science is inherently implied in the ability to create them in the first place.
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  5. #5
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivam View Post
    The ability to not be bound by the laws of science is inherently implied in the ability to create them in the first place.
    That would be fine if we were talking about something fictional. If you wish to instantiate god outside the realm of fiction, though, he needs support & evidence. Not free passes.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    That would be fine if we were talking about something fictional. If you wish to instantiate god outside the realm of fiction, though, he needs support & evidence. Not free passes.
    That was gibberish.

    Are you or are you not assuming, for purposes of your argument, that the "omnipotent God" we are discussing in fact created the universe?

    If so, then my answer stands; that very assumption itself provides all the evidence necessary to reasonably conclude that God is not bound by the scientific laws He created.

    If not, then your argument is an irrelevant sideshow; the real argument is whether or not God created the Universe and its attendant scientific laws. I will cheerfully agree with you that any hypothetical entity under discussion that did not create the Universe must be bound by the laws of science. Thus, the real (and only) question brought up by the OP is "did God create the Universe" - a question for which the arguments you make here have no relevance.

    (separately, the question "can God travel faster than the speed of light" is a nonsequitur; God, being non-physical, cannot "travel" (i.e. physically move from one place to another) at all)
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    145
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    A possible solution - a failure of language.
    Example. Genesis says the moon is a light.
    Science says the moon reflects the sun's light but does not produce light.
    Skeptic says, aha, bible is wrong.
    Apologists says if you saw a bike reflector in the distance on a dark night wouldn't you call it a light even though it is only a reflection.
    Skeptic says, oh.

    We don't have a better word than omnipotent for a being that can do everything except perform contradictions.

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Two further points:

    1) Any argument against my post really ought to be limited to an argument that "that God created the laws of science does not necessarily imply that he is not bound by them"; if you cannot support that argument then, as I said above, we are really merely arguing about whether God created the universe, and you concede that, if God did, there can be no question about God's ability to (as you put it) "contradict the laws of science";

    2) I'm not at all sure what you mean when you say "how God can do that". Are you asking "by what mechanism can God contradict the laws of science"? In what way does the mechanism matter? More to the point, looking for "mechanisms" appears to be nothing more than looking for a scientific explanation for how God can contradict science. Of course, if it could be explained scientifically, there would be no contradiction. As such, you have (again) framed your argument in terms that assume from the outset that your position is right.
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  9. #9
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivam View Post
    That was gibberish.
    Oh I'm sorry.

    inĚstanĚtiĚate   /ɪnˈstŠnʃiˌeɪt/ Show Spelled[in-stan-shee-eyt]
    verb (used with object), -atĚed, -atĚing.
    to provide an instance of or concrete evidence in support of (a theory, concept, claim, or the like).

    Are you or are you not assuming, for purposes of your argument, that the "omnipotent God" we are discussing in fact created the universe?
    What I'm saying is that for omnipotence to be something we take seriously, apologists would need to provide evidence of how it's possible. (we already know that theists claim god is omnipotent). Without evidence, though, it's not a proposition we can take seriously.

    Consider this exchange.

    Person 1: "Superman isn't fictional he's real. He literally exists and even though he's the size of a person, he can lift mountains."

    Person 2: "What!? That makes no sense. The physics is all wrong; things the size of people don't have the leverage to lift buildings let alone mountains. Obviously your claim is flawed."

    Person 1: "It's not flawed. He might be human sized, but he's Superman. And Superman can lift mountains because he has super strength."

    We get that the most common definition of Superman has him strong enough to lift mountains. And that's fine so long as he's a fictional character. Try to claim he's not fictional and there's a lot of evidence we need. How is it even possible for something human sized to lift a mountain? All the evidence we have says no. So without any evidence to the contrary, claims to the contrary fail. Saying "lol, because he's Superman" doesn't work. It's just a cop out. An unsupported claim trying to prop up another unsupported claim.

    It works the same way with god.

    ---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kong View Post
    A possible solution - a failure of language.
    Thank you for confusing the issue by juggling around the context.

    ---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivam View Post
    Two further points:

    1) Any argument against my post really ought to be limited to an argument that "that God created the laws of science does not necessarily imply that he is not bound by them"; if you cannot support that argument then, as I said above, we are really merely arguing about whether God created the universe, and you concede that, if God did, there can be no question about God's ability to (as you put it) "contradict the laws of science";
    This is a tremendous cop-out. To be sure, you cannot define your way out of supporting a claim. Otherwise it paves the way for statements like, "My argument is superlogical. It transcends logic and cannot be impeached by your mere logic nor does it require any support."

    2) I'm not at all sure what you mean when you say "how God can do that".
    God, being omnipotent, necessarily has to be able to break the laws of science. Offering in explanation "because he's GOD" puts him on even intellectual footing with Superman; that is to say, fictional.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    What does traveling faster than light mean? Are we talking about the movement of an object possessing mass (Does God have mass)? An object with a defined energy (Does God have a set energy, is He made of energy)? Are we talking about the ability to move from point A to point B (would this have any meaningful application to an omnipresent God)? Are we talking about merely the movement of information (what about quantum entanglement where information appears to travel instantaneously over any distance)? What about theoretical particles of negative squared mass, tachyons, that always travel faster than light?

    I could go on, but I feel that these issues should first be addressed.

    ---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    1. Contradicting a scientific law requires evidnece.*
    2. An omnipotent being, limited only by that which is logically possible, must be able to contradict any and every scientific law.**
    3. Claiming god, an omnipotent being, exists necessarily contradicts every scientific law.
    Thus, god requires evidence for how he could contradict each and every scientific law.

    Simply stating "he's omnipotent" does us no good because this, itself, is an unsupported claim. When dealing with an unnknown that requires support, we cannot shunt the claim into a category meant to shield it from scrutiny. We cannot claim that the rules don't count or attempt to define the claim in such a way that it gets a free pass from scrutiny.

    Take the speed of light, for example. Einstein discovered that most things cannot travel faster than light. So, to contradict this simple & eloquent law, we need evidence. Scientists are hard at work looking to support hypotheses that some VERY small particles can travel faster than light (or transmit information faster than light). However, saying something like, "There exists a category of thing that can go faster than light and this category is exempt from the requirement of evidence." This is unacceptable. Just as unacceptable is "There exists a category of thing that can go faster than light and this category requires a special set of logical rules that would normally be unacceptable." This is likewise unacceptable because it's simply a more subtle way of claiming exemption from the resonsibility of presenting evidence.

    Discuss.




    * i.e. Claiming things like "things can travel faster than light" or "force DOESN'T equal mass times acceleration" requires evidence otherwise we can simply dismiss them. There is a large body of evidence in support of the claim's opposition.

    ** A god who can't travel faster than light wouldn't be an omnipotent god. He would be a god bound by the laws of physics rather than a god that can set up the laws of physics.
    In addition to the questions I asked previously:

    1) The value of c (speed of light) is not a law, but a physical constant.

    2) It is unknown that there is any inherent reason for why the physical constants possess the values they do.

    3) In other universes, it is plausible for physical constants to have other values. Think multiverses and the anthropic principle.

    4) Therefore the use of c as an argument against omnipotence only has applicability to this specific universe.

    5) If God exists, he is not a part of this universe and the specific value of c as it applies to our universe would not apply to God.

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Oh I'm sorry.

    inĚstanĚtiĚate   /ɪnˈstŠnʃiˌeɪt/ Show Spelled[in-stan-shee-eyt]
    verb (used with object), -atĚed, -atĚing.
    to provide an instance of or concrete evidence in support of (a theory, concept, claim, or the like).
    Congrats, you've managed to entirely avoid making a point in favor of snark. Since that appears to be your goal, good work!


    What I'm saying is that for omnipotence to be something we take seriously, apologists would need to provide evidence of how it's possible. (we already know that theists claim god is omnipotent). Without evidence, though, it's not a proposition we can take seriously.
    Again, the circularity: you are asking for scientific explanations of how something can violate rules of science. It's an inherently nonsensical request.

    Again, the "evidence" you are calling for is found in the realm of logic, not scientific breakdowns of how a particular rule of science does not apply under particular circumstances (which, again, would simply subsume God within science, and thus not provide you with an answer to your question in any event).

    The logic is simple:

    If God created the laws of science, then he is capable of altering them.

    Of course, you're not going to answer yes or no to this question - you're going to attempt to dance around it, ignore it, anything but answer it - but I'll ask it again, anyway:

    Do you agree that if God created the Universe, it must be concluded that God can alter the laws of science at will?

    It's a simple yes or no. Feel free to throw out as many superman analogies as you want after answering the question. Failure to say "no" unequivocally, however, is a clear indication that you actually do agree with the statement, but don't want to deal with its implications.

    Consider this exchange.

    Person 1: "Superman isn't fictional he's real. He literally exists and even though he's the size of a person, he can lift mountains."

    Person 2: "What!? That makes no sense. The physics is all wrong; things the size of people don't have the leverage to lift buildings let alone mountains. Obviously your claim is flawed."
    Person 2 is an idiot. Yes, Superman is fictional. But leverage is a terrible argument in support of that position. Leverage merely allows you to multiply force. Superman, in conception, has no need of leverage; his muscles are strong enough to lift the mountain without it. Arguing "if a human cannot do this [because the muscles aren't strong enough to accomplish it without leverage] no other entity of the same size could possibly do it" is a flawed argument.

    Person 1: "It's not flawed. He might be human sized, but he's Superman. And Superman can lift mountains because he has super strength."

    We get that the most common definition of Superman has him strong enough to lift mountains. And that's fine so long as he's a fictional character. Try to claim he's not fictional and there's a lot of evidence we need. How is it even possible for something human sized to lift a mountain?
    How is it possible? Obviously, by having muscles of sufficient strength to provide sufficient force to lift the mountain without the need for the artificial multiplier of leverage. And Superman, as described, has such muscles

    Of course, then the question becomes "on what basis do you claim that Superman actually has such muscles." In the same way, your question really boils down to "on what basis do you claim that God created the Universe". But that's a separate question than the (tbh) somewhat whiny "but how can that be possible" question you've been asking.

    All the evidence we have says no.
    Really? What evidence do we have that someone with muscles sufficient to exert sufficient force to lift a mountain absent any leverage beyond that provided by a body the size of a human's could not, in fact, lift a mountain?

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "we have no such evidence; in fact, we could never have such evidence because, by definition, any entity with muscles sufficient to output that much force would be able to lift a mountain"

    What you are really saying, in connection with your superman analogy, is "all the evidence we have says that no entity with such muscles actually exists".

    Again, the only thing you've done is default back to the "how do we know God exists/created the Universe" question, not raised some separate difficulty with God's definition.

    So without any evidence to the contrary, claims to the contrary fail. Saying "lol, because he's Superman" doesn't work. It's just a cop out. An unsupported claim trying to prop up another unsupported claim.
    Not a cop out at all; it's simply cutting to the heart of the issue: Does Superman exist. There is nothing logically impossible about Superman's existence, no inherent contradiction in his claimed properties. Thus, anyone foolish enough to argue against Superman's existence by saying "but how can he be strong enough to lift mountains" could, quite reasonably, be responded to with nothing more than "lol, because he's superman" (which is nothing more than shorthand for "his muscles provide sufficient force")

    It works the same way with god.

    Agreed. For your argument to have any potency at all, you have to assume that God does not exist/did not create the universe. Given that assumption, however, there is no need for your argument, as the "God" you are attempting to prove cannot exist is already assumed to not exist.

    Your entire argument is a masturbatory waste of time.

    This is a tremendous cop-out. To be sure, you cannot define your way out of supporting a claim. Otherwise it paves the way for statements like, "My argument is superlogical. It transcends logic and cannot be impeached by your mere logic nor does it require any support."
    You love repeating this, but it really has nothing to do with anything.

    Again: If God had the ability to create the laws of science in the first instance, God must have the ability to alter them. The one implies the other.

    Either you disagree with that statement, and argue "Even if God created the laws of science, he would have no ability to alter them", or you concede that your real argument is "God did not create the laws of science"

    It's a simple if-then. Either deny its validity or deny the antecedent, but you can't simply ignore it by waving your hands and screaming "cop out".

    ---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------

    Yopu know, Zhavric, for someone who says that I'm trying to claim that my arguments can't be impeached by logic, you've demonstrated a remarkably strong aversion to actually employing any.

    Here's a remedial class in logic for you: The conclusion of an If->Then statement can only be an inaccurate representation of reality if: (1) it is not valid (the conclusion does not follow from the premises); or (2) the "If" is not true in reality.

    Thus, given the statement "if John is human, John is female," the conclusion "John is female" might not be an accurate representation of reality (even assuming John is human) because humanity does not necessarily imply femaleness. Similarly, given the statement "if John is human, John has human DNA", the conclusion "John has human DNA" might not be an accurate representation of reality because John might not be human at all.

    Here, I've given you an if->then statement: If God created the laws of science, God must have the capacity to alter them.

    The only ways the conclusion "God can alter the laws of science" could be false are if: (1) the ability to create laws of science does not necessarily imply the ability to alter them; or (2) the laws of science were not created by God.

    Either deny the validity of my if->then statement, or deny the truth of the antecedent.

    But - and I suspect you know this - saying "that's a cop out" isn't actually a logical response to my argument at all.

    Even if you attach the adjective "tremendous".
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,367
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Contradicting a scientific law requires evidence.*
    In order to consider evidence using scientific law, scientific inquiry requires we define what we're investigating. Thus, please define God using scientific terms.

    An omnipotent being, limited only by that which is logically possible
    Before we can use the logical mind to investigate logical aspects of what we are investigating, we must consider what we're investigating. Logic works on definitions. Thus, please define God using scientific terms.

    3. Claiming god, an omnipotent being, exists necessarily contradicts every scientific law.
    If you want to discuss contradictions in scientific laws, I don't think "omnipotent being" is a scientific definition. Thus, please define God using scientific terms.

    Thus, god requires evidence for how he could contradict each and every scientific law.
    I submit, given your OP, that God first requires a scientific definition (ideally universal), don' you think?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  13. #13
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    What does traveling faster than light mean? Are we talking about the movement of an object possessing mass (Does God have mass)? An object with a defined energy (Does God have a set energy, is He made of energy)? Are we talking about the ability to move from point A to point B (would this have any meaningful application to an omnipresent God)? Are we talking about merely the movement of information (what about quantum entanglement where information appears to travel instantaneously over any distance)? What about theoretical particles of negative squared mass, tachyons, that always travel faster than light?

    I could go on, but I feel that these issues should first be addressed.

    ---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 PM ----------



    In addition to the questions I asked previously:

    1) The value of c (speed of light) is not a law, but a physical constant.

    2) It is unknown that there is any inherent reason for why the physical constants possess the values they do.

    3) In other universes, it is plausible for physical constants to have other values. Think multiverses and the anthropic principle.

    4) Therefore the use of c as an argument against omnipotence only has applicability to this specific universe.

    5) If God exists, he is not a part of this universe and the specific value of c as it applies to our universe would not apply to God.
    Harping on the details of one scientific law doesn't solve the problem, Chad. Whatever the law is, being omnipotent means claiming "god exists" also means "that law/rule/constant/etc. doesn't apply to god". That's a claim that requires support. Not more unsupported claims.

    ---------- Post added at 07:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivam
    How is it possible? Obviously, by having muscles of sufficient strength to provide sufficient force to lift the mountain without the need for the artificial multiplier of leverage. And Superman, as described, has such muscles
    That's what's CLAIMED of Superman. But for us to think of Superman has being not fictional, we'd need evidence of how thus muscles work to lift mountains.

    Similarly, if you want to claim that god isn't fictional, we need similar evidence of how he can get around the laws of science.

    Kivam, I really cannot discern if you're being deliberately obtuse in this thread. Do you really not get that defining a thing a certain way doesn't make up for a lack of evidence? Really?

    ---------- Post added at 07:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    In order to consider evidence using scientific law, scientific inquiry requires we define what we're investigating. Thus, please define God using scientific terms.
    That's something theists need to do.

    If I told you, "There's a disembodied intelligence in the room with me that can make huge objects (like cakes) come into existence from nothing" you'd dismiss such a claim if I had no evidence of it. Intelligence requires something to house it in and things the size of cakes don't just pop into existence. If you pointed these things out to me and I told you "well, first you have to DEFINE my disembodied intelligence using science..." that would be a pretty lame defense. Wouldn't you agree? Think about how much worse it would be if I started to play with the definition to avoid having to provide you with evidence.

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    First, exactly as I predicted, you've managed to avoid answering a simple yes or no question, or to even attempt to provide a logical response to the if-->then statement.

    As for your actual "arguments":


    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    That's what's CLAIMED of Superman. But for us to think of Superman has being not fictional, we'd need evidence of how thus muscles work to lift mountains.
    No, you really wouldn't. You'd merely need evidence that they do, in fact, work that way.

    On your theory, even if you personally saw Superman, actually in reality, lifting a mountain, you'd be obligated to reject the reality of his existence until you had him on an examining table, took a sample of his muscle fiber, and were able to analyze it's components to determine how it allowed Superman to exert that much force.

    Similarly, on your theory (which is that you cannot have evidence that something exists/works as described until you know how it works), then the fact of gravity (objects dropped on earth will fall to the ground) could not be asserted to be true until scientists figured out how gravity worked. The same is true for all currently unexplained phenomena (such as light acting as both a particle and a wave) - we simply cannot believe that it is true (despite any evidence we may have of the fact that it is true) until we know how it works that way.

    Do you honestly not see the absurdity of your position?

    Similarly, if you want to claim that god isn't fictional, we need similar evidence of how he can get around the laws of science.
    No. Similarly, to demonstrate that God exists, we need evidence that God exists. If there is evidence that God exists, that evidence, in and of itself, provides evidence that God can obviate the laws of science. Just like with someone watching Superman lift a mountain, or the scientist who conducted the double slit experiment, when one has evidence that something in fact exists, the lack of an explanation of its behavior is no impediment to concluding that it exists.

    Kivam, I really cannot discern if you're being deliberately obtuse in this thread. Do you really not get that defining a thing a certain way doesn't make up for a lack of evidence? Really?
    Do you really not understand that your argument depends on the assumption that there is no evidence for God's existence? Really?

    Well, obviously, no, you get that just fine. Because if you didn't know that, you wouldn't be so desperately avoiding responding to the if->then statement

    That's something theists need to do.

    If I told you, "There's a disembodied intelligence in the room with me that can make huge objects (like cakes) come into existence from nothing" you'd dismiss such a claim if I had no evidence of it.
    Correct. So, again, your real question is not "by what mechanism is that accomplished" but "what evidence do you have to support your contention that it exists"

    Intelligence requires something to house it in and things the size of cakes don't just pop into existence. If you pointed these things out to me and I told you "well, first you have to DEFINE my disembodied intelligence using science..." that would be a pretty lame defense. Wouldn't you agree?
    Yes, that would be lame. However, if your argument were "you can't tell me what mechanism the cake maker uses to make cakes", the rational response would be "so what?" The mechanism does not matter. The only relevant question is "does it exist." If it exists, then the fact that we would not understand how it was making cakes would not alter the fact that it was, in fact, making cakes - in exactly the same way that the fact that we did not understand why objects always fell to the ground changed the fact that they did, in fact, always fall to the ground.

    Think about how much worse it would be if I started to play with the definition to avoid having to provide you with evidence.
    Wow, that would be awful. Good thing I haven't actually done that in any way, shape or form.

    Lastly, just to keep it clear:

    Still waiting on ANY response to the if--->then statement . . . beyond hand waving and attempting to ignore it
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  15. #15
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivam
    Correct. So, again, your real question is not "by what mechanism is that accomplished" but "what evidence do you have to support your contention that it exists"
    It's so refreshing when you address my real argument (even if you are just accidentally stumbling over it). What evidence do you have to support your contention that a god capable of breaking every law of science can exist?

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by zhavric
    Harping on the details of one scientific law doesn't solve the problem, Chad. Whatever the law is, being omnipotent means claiming "god exists" also means "that law/rule/constant/etc. doesn't apply to god". That's a claim that requires support. Not more unsupported claims.


    So you are saying that details don't matter in science? Good to know.



    Furthermore, I think you have failed to understand the point of my second argument:

    1) The value of c (speed of light) is not a law, but a physical constant.

    2) It is unknown that there is any inherent reason for why the physical constants possess the values they do.

    3) In other universes, it is plausible for physical constants to have other values. Think multiverses and the anthropic principle.

    4) Therefore the use of c as an argument against omnipotence only has applicability to this specific universe.

    5) If God exists, he is not a part of this universe and the specific value of c as it applies to our universe would not apply to God.


    We can replace c in this argument with any physical constant you wish. We can even replace it with physical laws. You have a tendency to give scientific facts some intransitable quality when they really don't.

  17. #17
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    So you are saying that details don't matter in science? Good to know.
    Give us this day our daily strawman.



    Furthermore, I think you have failed to understand the point of my second argument:

    [/COLOR][I]1) The value of c (speed of light) is not a law, but a physical constant.
    Cool. I can break your physical constant. I can go faster than the speed of light.

    Obviously you wouldn't agree.

    If I say "god can break that constant and go faster than light", what's changed? Has support been offered? Nope. Have we instead offered a cop out by trying to say that the rules don't apply to god? Yes.

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Give us this day our daily strawman.
    Details matter, particularly in science. What do you have to say about the possibility of tachyons? I'm just curious, they actually arise naturally in some string theories, yet are theoretically possible independent of string theory. They also travel faster than the speed of light.


    Cool. I can break your physical constant. I can go faster than the speed of light.

    Obviously you wouldn't agree.

    If I say "god can break that constant and go faster than light", what's changed? Has support been offered? Nope. Have we instead offered a cop out by trying to say that the rules don't apply to god? Yes.
    Wow, complete miss.

    3) In other universes, it is plausible for physical constants to have other values. Think multiverses and the anthropic principle.

    4) Therefore the use of c as an argument against omnipotence only has applicability to this specific universe.

    5) If God exists, he is not a part of this universe and the specific value of c as it applies to our universe would not apply to God.


    You are part of this universe. God is not, other universes are not. You cannot apply rules that are context specific (this universe, including you) to other contexts.

  19. #19
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Details matter, particularly in science. What do you have to say about the possibility of tachyons? I'm just curious, they actually arise naturally in some string theories, yet are theoretically possible independent of string theory. They also travel faster than the speed of light.
    I have to say that pointing to propositions that DO have support doesn't do anything to prove propositions that DO NOT have support. So tachyons might travel faster than light. So ****ing what? Do you think god is a tachyon? Prove it. Do you think he can manipulate tachyons? Prove it. Do you think he can travel faster than light without tachyons? Prove it. You can't just say "He can cuz he'z god lawl".



    Quote Originally Posted by you
    You are part of this universe. God is not, other universes are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    Has support been offered? Nope. Have we instead offered a cop out by trying to say that the rules don't apply to god? Yes.
    Thank you for proving my point for me.

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Omnipotence vs. Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    I have to say that pointing to propositions that DO have support doesn't do anything to prove propositions that DO NOT have support. So tachyons might travel faster than light. So ****ing what? Do you think god is a tachyon? Prove it. Do you think he can manipulate tachyons? Prove it. Do you think he can travel faster than light without tachyons? Prove it. You can't just say "He can cuz he'z god lawl".








    Thank you for proving my point for me.
    I am not saying God is a tachyon, I am pointing out one of those "details" that are so unimportant to you. Tachyons are a particles capable of going faster than light, which pretty much destroys your entire going faster than light argument.

    Your entire argument is that it is dependent upon several assumptions about God:

    1) God is a part of the universe
    2) God is made of normal matter/energy
    3) God is not omnipresent

    None of which apply to God. You argument is premised on a strawman.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •