[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 753 KB, 959x1024, 6ACB5DD0-A17B-4406-9592-D014152ADC06.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15480614 No.15480614 [Reply] [Original]

>god not giving humans the ability to understand the reason why he does what he does is proof he is not omnipotent at best and evil at worst
the above is essentially asking why God cannot create another God, which is the only being capable of experiencing and knowing what is “Good” in a manner that is not entirely subjective

why is being able to do the ontologically impossible fall under the definition of “not being omnipotent”? being able to do the ontologically impossible is essentially being able to place limits upon the unlimited, and an omnipotent being with unlimited power would logically be unable to place limits on itself

>> No.15480729

>>15480614
your view of philosophy - in particular metaphysics - is confused. metaphysics is conceptual analysis. when "god" is criticized, it means that a certain conception of god contains problems. philosophy of religion is not about trying to prove or disprove god, in the sense of "proof" that lets us make inferences from experience about factual things. proof in metaphysics is about showing bad ways of organizing concepts. in this sense, god is "unable" to do anything we are unable to conceive of, because our concept of omnipotence is grounded in our ability to imagine everything that can be. being "ontologically impossible" means not even existing in the imaginary possibility space, because of not even fitting in the conceptual scheme, being wrong.
given this, our concept of god can't place restrictions on what we can possibly know and what god can possibly know, because there is a 1:1 correspondence between "everything that can be done" and "everything that god can do". if we can't know something because it is impossible to know it, then it simply is not a possible thing to know. but that can't be right if god is supposed to know it.

>> No.15480762

>>15480729
why is god supposed to follow the same logical and ontological rules as humans?

>> No.15480769

>>15480729
>god cannot do something because of the logical standards created by the limited human mind

>> No.15480774

>>15480762
still the same confusion. concepts follow the patterns that describe concepts. the discipline that studies the patterns that describe our conceptual scheme - then nature of ideas - is philosophy

>> No.15480780

>>15480774
again, why do you assert that god must exist solely as a concept created by the human mind? if anything, humans exist as a concept created by god’s mind.

>> No.15480793

>>15480769
>>15480780
again the same confusion. god, wherever he may be, is not bound by mortal imagination. you are not god. you are a mortal, and you had better not confuse the two. when you talk to me, fellow mortal, about god, you had better give me a logical description of your conception of god. it is a conception, yes. you are a mortal. you are not omnipotent, and you do to know god. we are guessing, is what this is. conceptual analysis and speculation. we generate ideas by speculating, and then we eliminate ideas by finding conceptual problems in the ideas. this is called metaphysics. if you think something else is metaphysics, you are wrong. if you are religious, know that all of your theologians, especially your favorite ones, disagree with you and agree with me.

>> No.15480863

>>15480793(samefag)
also if it makes any difference to you, i also believe that god exists. my point is that you need to make sense of what it is we're doing when trying to understand him before you can even begin doing it properly.