Question (which may not be appropriate for this forum, but since faith was brought up, what the hell): If, as many IDiots claim, evolution is guided by God(s) through intelligent design, why do those with copious amounts of faith experience just as much pain as the non-faithful? Seriously. If God(s) is designing the whole shebang, how hard would it be to link faithfulness with less pain, or better disease resistance, or less intelligence, or cancer resistence, or increased fertility? If we are intelligently designed, why is faith neither a selector nor a mitigator?
Naah. Unfortunately the physicists have taken to calling he Higgs Boson the “God particle” (God knows why). If they find it, the refugees from the 12th Century will start crowing that it’s proven the existence of the deity.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhhh… my glasses!
Sven DiMilosays
the Monster Truck Rally and/or ABC Sports Spectacular openings
Oh, that meme dates much further back than that. I remember radio ads for drag races back in the mid-1960s that were all about “Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! Funny cars!! Top fuel dragsters! Sunday!”
Raysays
Billy #8: how hard would it be to link faithfulness with less pain, or better disease resistance, or less intelligence
I believe he may already have achieved the latter…
HazyDsays
Really funny, loved the webcam too, going to show that to a couple of my friends who have been spazing out over the LHC destroying existence as paranoid stoners will do, should scare the shit out of them.
Holbachsays
What, no invisible god shield around the religious cretin?
HazyDsays
Really funny, loved the webcam too, going to show that to a couple of my friends who have been spazing out over the LHC destroying existence as paranoid stoners will do, should scare the shit out of them.
Cafeeine @ #11 typed: “…the usual god groupie answer is that God being able to do this, does not actually have to.”
Nicolas Everitt in his book, The Non Existence of God points out that the word “GOD” is not a title but rather a metaphysical descriptor. Under Abrahamic theism, the “GOD” notion is deemed metaphysically necessary, so it cannot stop being “GOD”. To be “GOD”, it must exert all its powers continuously. If the “GOD” being were to cease exerting one of its powers, it would no longer be “GOD”. This means “GOD”, if it exists, cannot commit suicide or lay aside its powers. But an omnipotent being should be able to terminate itself or lay aside its powers. Therefore, an omnipotent “GOD” cannot exist.
Lilly de Luresays
It will zap creationists with 10,000 Volts of scientific method
Sigh – if only we could arrange for something similar here, that would certainly be one way of taking care of the troll infestation problem PZ was worrying about earlier!
tsgsays
This means “GOD”, if it exists, cannot commit suicide or lay aside its powers. But an omnipotent being should be able to terminate itself or lay aside its powers. Therefore, an omnipotent “GOD” cannot exist.
This hinges on a definition of “omnipotent” that means able to do the logically impossible like making a circle with corners or a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it. I haven’t run into anyone who claims it does.
Maybe I’m a humourless dork, but I don’t really find “the big bad scientists are going to kill us all” style jokes to be particularly funny. Stinks of the frankenstein myth to me.
Howdy all – totally off topic but I just accidently wandered into Matt Nisbet’s place (I meant to click on Evolving Thoughts and missed…) and noticed the latest post wherein he (yet again) can’t resist swiping at PZ and Dawkins. That guy needs to get another hobby.
If the Higgs boson particle is confirmed as real, will that be usable as an argument against the notion that a creator “GOD” exists. The notion of a creator includes the proposition that the alleged “GOD” entity “sustains” or “holds” or “maintains” into existence which is taken for reality. Part of that would be why matter has mass. If mass is a natural phenomenon that results from the action of Higgs bosons and a scalar field, then mass is not the product of religious magic nor a super-natural occurrence. Then the alleged “GOD” entity does not “sustain” or “hold” or “maintain” into existence which is taken for reality. Consequently, “GOD” could not exist.
Does this seem in any way like a valid argument? Could this be structured as a sound argument against “GOD” belief?
tsgsays
I saw the webcam as laughing at, rather than with, the WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!1! tabloid hysteria. That’s what made it so funny.
I think they’ve been watching too many “scientists mucking about with things they don’t understand, layperson-hero saves the world” movies.
Just once I want to see a movie where the panicky believer complaining about scientists “playing god” turns out to be utterly wrong.
That’s what I loved about Scooby-Doo: the critical thinkers were always the ones to figure it out.
Honestly, compared other end-of-world scenarios (nuclear war, large asteroid hitting the earth, global climate change, massive epidemics), most of which are far more likely to occur than any LHC-induced disaster, I have to say the possibility of being sucked into a black hole sounds like a pretty benign way for it all to end.
Jamssays
“If we are intelligently designed, why is faith neither a selector nor a mitigator?” – Billy @8
Some responses I’ve heard:
– God makes life difficult to test our faith, because faith has no value if it is not tested. The more faithful you are, the MORE difficult your life should be. It’s only the truly faithful who are worthy of the most aggravated trials. To not be afflicted, is to be denied an opportunity to try your faith.
– Affliction only causes despair in the unfaithful. The faithful have nothing to fear from affliction. God has created affliction without bias. It is us who choose – and only those who chose faith can pass through with an ear splitting grin.
…and so on.
E.V.says
Ryan:
– now that’s funny.”
You’ve provided evidence that humor is subjective. The clip you thought was funny was derivitive and hackneyed. “Oh look! A black hole! Gee I guess the idiots were right about the accelerator.”
Now if they had done something totally unexpected, it might have elicited a chuckle from me; but that’s just me. Whatever.
Epinephrinesays
I’ll admit to being a bit disturbed by the last panel…
[pedant]How on earth can they seriously suggest that it’s only 10,000 volts? That’s only a couple of inches of arc. The Van de Graaff generator we used to make hair stand on end generated about 400,000 volts.
The creationist victim there is presumably an adult, and the visible section of the arc is at least that person’s height – and may extend a long way out of the frame. If we asssume a meter long arc and 1kV/mm arc length, one needs 1,000,000V to make that arc. I suspect that the voltage is off by between 3-4 orders of magnitude.[/pedant]
tsgsays
Does this seem in any way like a valid argument? Could this be structured as a sound argument against “GOD” belief?
The prerequisite to any argument against god is a claim about what it actually is. My stock reply to “do you believe in god?” is “define god.” I’ve yet to get an answer of any substance.
E.V.says
Have I mentioned we’re about to get the shit beat out of us by Hurricane Ike? Life in Texas – if it’s not the idiot religionists, it’s nature that will bring you down.
Scooter? I assume you’re no longer in Houston.
Jamssays
“The notion of a creator includes the proposition that the alleged “GOD” entity “sustains” or “holds” or “maintains” into existence which is taken for reality. […] Could this be structured as a sound argument against “GOD” belief?” – robert_b aka libertarianbob @40
It could be fashioned into an argument against a god that is alleged to sustain, hold, or maintain existence. Not every god is endowed with this power though, so it can’t be fashioned into a general argument against all gods – only against a god with that specific characteristic.
Ichthyicsays
Does this seem in any way like a valid argument? Could this be structured as a sound argument against “GOD” belief?
no.
as noted by tsg, “moving the goalposts” and shooting for the next available gap to play “hide the god” is part and parcel of theists.
I’m sure their response would be along the lines of:
“well, god created those particles specifically in order for the property of “mass” to exist.”
there simply is no way to prove a non-existent entity actually does not exist.
Thanks for your comment. Everitt worked through several versions and scholarly definitions of omnipotence in “The Non Existence of God”. None of those he argued against can be defended. In The Impossibility of God J.L. Cowan in his “Paradox of Omnipotence” essays effectively reveals the clay feet several other theistic philosophers employ in their definitions of omnipotence.
But your point is well taken. Consider omnipotence as defined as the capabilities of a being logically consistent with all its other metaphysical properties. If we then posit a being whose power is that can not do anything at all, that being would be omnipotent since doing nothing would be consistent with all its metaphysical properties. This definition of omnipotence then fails.
Yet, it still seems very reasonable to imagine that an all-powerful being should be able to terminate itself or lay aside its powers. However, a necessary and “eternal” being could not do those things. This then is the contradiction that renders omnipotence non-cognitive.
tsg typed: “This hinges on a definition of “omnipotent” that means able to do the logically impossible like making a circle with corners or a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it.”
While I cannot make a circle with corners, I can form a mass of concrete too heavy for me to lift. Thus, I can do something an omnipotent being cannot. Otherwise, if omnipotence is defined in a prescriptive manner, then the omnipotent being can be imagined as able to declare itself unable (in a legal sense) to lift an arbitrarily small weight. The super-heavy rock situation would then be no limitation to omnipotence. But by legislating against itself to restrict its capabilities, “GOD” would be effectively laying aside its power and rendering itself non-existent, since “GOD” is defined as a necessary and eternal being. So then “GOD” must be able to make a rock so heavy it cannot be lifted. Omnipotence is then non-cognitive, and “GOD” cannot exist.
AABsays
I am surprised no one mentioned this so far:
chad the impalersays
Ha…nice comic…but Here’s the real truth behind the LHC!!!
tsg: “My stock reply to “do you believe in god?” is “define god.” I’ve yet to get an answer of any substance.”
George H. Smith in Atheism: The Case Against God makes that very point. He recommended that in conversation with theists that the goal should be to get the believer to commit to a specific definition of deity. As you point out, almost all theists are loath to do so. They, but especially the open theism or process theology people, wish to equivocate on what “GOD” means. It is quite humorous to witness their squirming writhing efforts to escape self-contradiction.
Does anyone have any idea who paid for the “Has the LHC destroyed the universe?” ads It’s normally big corporate types with ads on Sb, no?
tsgsays
Yet, it still seems very reasonable to imagine that an all-powerful being should be able to terminate itself or lay aside its powers. However, a necessary and “eternal” being could not do those things. This then is the contradiction that renders omnipotence non-cognitive.
I disagree. An omnipotent being that has the ability to terminate its own existence but chooses not to would be eternal. Not using an ability does not mean it is not capable of using it. A not unreasonable definition of “all powerful” is “able to do whatever he chooses to” and by simply not choosing to do something, does not lose any power. In fact, I would think that omnipotence, in addition to having the ability to do anything he wants, would have to also include the ability to not do anything he doesn’t want.
While I cannot make a circle with corners, I can form a mass of concrete too heavy for me to lift. Thus, I can do something an omnipotent being cannot.
I was referring to a well-known paradox often used in arguments against god: If god is all powerful, can he make a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it? If he can, then there is a limit to his power because he can’t lift the rock and thus he is not all powerful. If he can’t, then that is a limit on his power and thus he is not all powerful. It is self-contradictory in that he would have to simultaneously be able and unable to lift a rock and therefore logically impossible. It only holds if “omnipotence” includes the ability to perform the logically impossible. Very many people will argue that it doesn’t.
tsgtsays
George H. Smith in Atheism: The Case Against God makes that very point. He recommended that in conversation with theists that the goal should be to get the believer to commit to a specific definition of deity. As you point out, almost all theists are loath to do so. They, but especially the open theism or process theology people, wish to equivocate on what “GOD” means. It is quite humorous to witness their squirming writhing efforts to escape self-contradiction.
I have taken to telling people that I am ignostic. That is, where the theist says, “god exists”, the agnostic says “I don’t/can’t know if god exists”, and the atheist says, “god does not exist”, the ignostic says “I don’t know what you mean when you say ‘god exists'”. (I realize this is a gross simplification of these viewpoints.)
I can’t tell you whether I believe a thing or not until you can tell me what it is I’m supposed to believe. I have no desire to play theistic whack-a-mole.
amphioxsays
Cervantes #12:
I have heard that the physicist in question originally called it the “goddamn” particle, and it was shortened in the first press release.
I have also heard it said that it is so described because like “god” the Higgs boson, while supposedly existing everywhere, is remarkably hard to find.
Rik.says
@ tsg, 57:
I think that the point that robert b was making with him being able to create a mass of concrete that he cannot lift, and an omnipotent being not being able too…well, for a silly mortal human to be able to do something a supposedly omnipotent being can’t? That’s rather…stupid.
You say that “It only holds if “omnipotence” includes the ability to perform the logically impossible. Very many people will argue that it doesn’t.”
but I think he was trying to say that any definition must include the ability to perform the logical impossible or the definition of omnipotence becomes rather, well, silly.
Quiet_Desperationsays
robert_b aka libertarianbob :”My stock reply to “do you believe in god?” is “define god.” I’ve yet to get an answer of any substance.”
In association with the “Monsters Of Science” concert tour:
Buckaroo Banzai and The Hong Kong Cavaliers, with special guest artist/astrophysicist Brian May, Ph.D (formerly with QUEEN). MC Hawking and Dark Matter, with special guest AlpineKat (“LHC Rap”).
tsgsays
I think that the point that robert b was making with him being able to create a mass of concrete that he cannot lift, and an omnipotent being not being able too…well, for a silly mortal human to be able to do something a supposedly omnipotent being can’t? That’s rather…stupid.
but I think he was trying to say that any definition must include the ability to perform the logical impossible or the definition of omnipotence becomes rather, well, silly.
Being able to do the logically impossible is a condition of omnipotence that cannot be satisfied and it is unreasonable to insist that’s what god proponents mean when they claim god is omnipotent. In short, it is a definition chosen solely for the sake of making it impossible to achieve.
It’s a No True Scotsman fallacy: it’s attempting to prove god doesn’t exist by defining god as something that cannot exist and not as the claimed supernatural deity that, for example, created the universe, personally guides events, and rewards or punishes behavior by those occupying it. In the end, all it says is “the logically impossible is impossible” and no longer has anything to do with god.
Being able to do the logically impossible is a condition of omnipotence that cannot be satisfied and it is unreasonable to insist that’s what god proponents mean when they claim god is omnipotent. In short, it is a definition chosen solely for the sake of making it impossible to achieve.
The “microwave a burrito so hot that not even he can eat it” type arguments aren’t meant to argue against all gods though, just against omnipotent ones (indeed against omnipotent anythings). And they are stronger than the simple “God can’t make 0=1” arguments because they show there must be things which ARE logically possible and yet the god can’t do (because together with the ability to do some other logically possible task it produces a logical contradiction).
Also IIRC correctly the most common understanding of omnipotence amongst Sunni muslims is the strongest version – that God can suspend the laws of logic and make 0=1.
tsgsays
The “microwave a burrito so hot that not even he can eat it” type arguments aren’t meant to argue against all gods though, just against omnipotent ones (indeed against omnipotent anythings). And they are stronger than the simple “God can’t make 0=1” arguments because they show there must be things which ARE logically possible and yet the god can’t do (because together with the ability to do some other logically possible task it produces a logical contradiction).
All it does is disprove one particular definition of “omnipotent” specifically chosen for its ease of being disproved.
Hmm I don’t know that it is a definition of “omnipotent” that exists as a strawman though. I think it – there is nothing (which in itself is) logically possible that God cannot do- is what most people will think “omnipotent” is until they here an argument like that.
More nuanced “omniscience”s were only developed by people who knew why the naive version didn’t hold up. From what I’ve read other versions of omniscience are either really very much weaker (such as “all-powerful” in the sense of much stronger than any other entity) or they are open to more subtle take downs built on the burrito argument
tsgsays
Hmm I don’t know that it is a definition of “omnipotent” that exists as a strawman though. I think it – there is nothing (which in itself is) logically possible that God cannot do- is what most people will think “omnipotent” is until they here an argument like that.
But that is precisely the point. The logically impossible god argument only holds against gods that are defined to be logically impossible. In other words, that which is logically impossible cannot exist. The Everitt argument which spawned this debate is, in fact, only arguing against a logically impossible god, not god in general as it implies it does by using the term “omnipotent”.
More nuanced “omniscience”s were only developed by people who knew why the naive version didn’t hold up. From what I’ve read other versions of omniscience are either really very much weaker (such as “all-powerful” in the sense of much stronger than any other entity) or they are open to more subtle take downs built on the burrito argument
That is also the point. Those who insist on a logically impossible god existing will fall prey to the logically impossible god argument. I don’t think it is unreasonable for a person to modify his belief from “god who can do anything” to “god who can do anything that is not logically impossible”. And, in fact, the more rational of the god proponents will do exactly that. To those, the argument doesn’t apply.
The statement “an omnipotent god cannot exist”, as Everrit’s argument concludes, is more accurately restated “a logically impossible god cannot exist” and ceases to be meaningful.
Tulsesays
So an omnipotent god is nonetheless hostage to logic? Doesn’t that mean that such a being didn’t in fact create logic, and thus that logic (and presumably mathematics) necessarily existed prior to such a being? So where did the rules of logic come from, if not an omnipotent creator?
Anyone remember the Twilight Zone story where the devil appears to a mathematician who announced that he’d “sell my soul for the answer to this formula”.
The devil told him that the only way out of his damnation would be to ask him a question he couldn’t answer or to perform an impossible task. The devil then reminded the poor guy that he could do anything and go anywhere, even in time, and always come back unharmed.
The mathematician thought for a moment, and then said, “I know something you can’t do. GET LOST!”
(I wrote a poem about it – but beware, it’s a bit long-winded, in a Lewis Carroll sort of way)
Rik.says
That is also the point. Those who insist on a logically impossible god existing will fall prey to the logically impossible god argument. I don’t think it is unreasonable for a person to modify his belief from “god who can do anything” to “god who can do anything that is not logically impossible”. And, in fact, the more rational of the god proponents will do exactly that. To those, the argument doesn’t apply.
The statement “an omnipotent god cannot exist”, as Everrit’s argument concludes, is more accurately restated “a logically impossible god cannot exist” and ceases to be meaningful.
So, in other words, an omnipotent being cannot exist, unless you “weaken” the definition of omnipotent. Well, personally I’m not in favor of weakening definitions like that, but I’ll accept the argument. It does make me wonder, though: In the create-a-rock-god-cannot-lift example, would our hypothetical nearly-but-not-quite omnipotent god be able to create the rock, but not lift it, or unable to create it? I’m sure it’d be an interesting point for theologians to discuss about…well, if our hypothetical god had an actual religion.
Of course, if I were to believe in an omnipotent god (omnipotent in the “strong” sense) I’d argue that there is no problem. I’d claim that the human mind, and thus human logic is too limited to comprehend the greatness of my god and blablabla, I’m sure you’ve heard it all before. Come to think of it, it sounds rather like saying “you’re just too stupid to understand my invisible friend!” which sounds kind of stupid…glad I don’t believe in silly things like that :)
Oh! I’ve just thought of the most convoluted solution to the rock-problem! See, when god is posed with such a ‘challenge’, the Universe actually splits in 2! Then, in 1 Universe, God can lift the rock he just created, and in the other one, He can’t! But the God in both universes is still the same God because God is omnipresent in the entire Multiverse! Yeah, that makes perfect sense! I should be a theologian! :P
On a final note, I wouldn’t say the sentence “a logically impossible god cannot exist” is meaningless. I mean, it get rids of the totally omnipotent Gods who COULD vanquish all evil but don’t want to despite being benevolent.
Aaah, I’ve typed too much, and losing my train of thought. Let’s just see if the quoting works.
tsgsays
So an omnipotent god is nonetheless hostage to logic?
Pretty much, yes.
Doesn’t that mean that such a being didn’t in fact create logic, and thus that logic (and presumably mathematics) necessarily existed prior to such a being? So where did the rules of logic come from, if not an omnipotent creator?
You’re assuming that logic, mathematics and an omnipotent creator need creating. More specifically, logic and mathematics are formalized rules describing abstract concepts and is the reason they are the only two disciplines where something can be proven, using the strict definition of the word.
As for god, I’ll be the first to argue that if god didn’t need to be created then it punches a hole in the claim that the universe needed god to create it, but that is an argument that defeats the necessity of god, not its logical possibility.
Canucksays
@46
That was my reaction too. I’ve got a tiny Van de Graff generator that does 200,000 volts. 10 is bug squat. To toss an arc like that you’d need more than a few megavolts. Better to use a Tesla coil to kill that faith.
Tulsesays
You’re assuming that logic, mathematics and an omnipotent creator need creating.
Logic and math don’t need creating? In other words, the logic and math of our universe are an absolutely necessary feature of any possible world, and a omnipotent god couldn’t change them?
tsgsays
So, in other words, an omnipotent being cannot exist, unless you “weaken” the definition of omnipotent. Well, personally I’m not in favor of weakening definitions like that, but I’ll accept the argument.
I don’t see it as weakening the definition, but rather the real, what-people-really-mean-when-they-say-“omnipotent” definition. I don’t think “more powerful than any other being could be” is an unreasonable view and still pretty god-like.
It does make me wonder, though: In the create-a-rock-god-cannot-lift example, would our hypothetical nearly-but-not-quite omnipotent god be able to create the rock, but not lift it, or unable to create it? I’m sure it’d be an interesting point for theologians to discuss about…well, if our hypothetical god had an actual religion.
Not a theologian by any means, but I would think our hypothetical, can-do-anything-that’s-not-logically-impossible god could make a rock of any size and lift a rock of any size. I think that is a more apt description of god-like power than an ability to perform a logically impossible, but pointless feat.
On a final note, I wouldn’t say the sentence “a logically impossible god cannot exist” is meaningless. I mean, it get rids of the totally omnipotent Gods who COULD vanquish all evil but don’t want to despite being benevolent.
Not necessarily. Refusing to eliminate all evil does not preclude a god from being benevolent if it turns out it’s better for us in the long run.
tsgsays
Logic and math don’t need creating? In other words, the logic and math of our universe are an absolutely necessary feature of any possible world, and a omnipotent god couldn’t change them?
Logic and math are abstract concepts. They don’t physically exist.
confuzdsays
i did gotted zappd.
o rly?
ya feel betta.
Tulsesays
Logic and math are abstract concepts. They don’t physically exist.
“Love” is an abstract concept, as are “hope” and “salvation” and “sin”. Are you saying an omnipotent creator has no role in creating those things either?
tsgsays
“Love” is an abstract concept, as are “hope” and “salvation” and “sin”. Are you saying an omnipotent creator has no role in creating those things either?
No.
Rik.says
I don’t see it as weakening the definition, but rather the real, what-people-really-mean-when-they-say-“omnipotent” definition. I don’t think “more powerful than any other being could be” is an unreasonable view and still pretty god-like.
‘kay, so now our god is The Most Powerful Being That Could Hypothetically Exist. Hmm. Well, ok, that’s not unreasonable.
Not a theologian by any means, but I would think our hypothetical, can-do-anything-that’s-not-logically-impossible god could make a rock of any size and lift a rock of any size. I think that is a more apt description of god-like power than an ability to perform a logically impossible, but pointless feat.
Well, that makes sense. Also, that’s a great way of crushing the unbelievers! Wait, this god doesn’t exist, so I can’t ask it to crush all the people I don’t like or disagree with. Curses.
Not necessarily. Refusing to eliminate all evil does not preclude a god from being benevolent if it turns out it’s better for us in the long run.
Under some religious systems this would be an acceptable explanation. Under others (the agree with us or BURN FOREVER types. Those gods are probably not benevolent though…), not so much. But that only applies to some specific religions & requires an in my eyes rather odd definition of ‘benevolent’ so the argument holds.
Ok! You’ve convinced me that there could hypothetically exist a really powerful sort of entity that might even be able to, through some as ofyet unknown mechanism, manipulate the laws of physics to some extent. Honestly though, it sounds more like some kind of super-alien than a divine being. Unless super-aliens are divine beings?
Tulsesays
tgs, your terse response wasn’t clear — as abstract concepts, are “love” and “hope” uncreatable by an omnipotent being, just as logic and math aren’t?
OrchidGrowinMansays
OT, OT as the thread has twisted, there are a couple of Sci-Fi stories I know of that are pertinent: speculations on the behaviour/effects of loose singularities:
tgs, your terse response wasn’t clear — as abstract concepts, are “love” and “hope” uncreatable by an omnipotent being, just as logic and math aren’t?
I didn’t say they were uncreatable. I was challenging your notion that they had to be.
tsgsays
I didn’t say they were uncreatable. I was challenging your notion that they had to be.
Clarification: I was challenging your notion that they had to be created.
complex_fieldsays
@ Billy #8 — more faith = less pain is the proposition of so-called “Prosperity Theology”. God blesses the faithful with material comfort, and as to the less faithful….You get the idea.
Such hypocrisy and narcissism boggle the mind.
tsgsays
‘kay, so now our god is The Most Powerful Being That Could Hypothetically Exist. Hmm. Well, ok, that’s not unreasonable.
Said another way, omnipotent, or all powerful, simply means possessing all the power it is possible to have. The same way omnidirectional doesn’t include directions that don’t exist, omnipotent shouldn’t have to include powers that can’t be had.
Under some religious systems this would be an acceptable explanation. Under others (the agree with us or BURN FOREVER types. Those gods are probably not benevolent though…), not so much. But that only applies to some specific religions & requires an in my eyes rather odd definition of ‘benevolent’ so the argument holds.
Yes, obviously. It really comes down to what a particular believer claims god is. Mostly my point, and the reason for my calling myself ignostic, is there can be no universal argument against god because there is no universal claim of what god is. It’s a catch-all term that is truly meaningless. Also, there are enough valid arguments why any particular god doesn’t exist that we don’t need to resort to the invalid ones. A logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy, even if you agree with what it’s trying to prove, and if we’re going to call them out when the other side advances them, we also have to call them out when our side does.
Ok! You’ve convinced me that there could hypothetically exist a really powerful sort of entity that might even be able to, through some as ofyet unknown mechanism, manipulate the laws of physics to some extent. Honestly though, it sounds more like some kind of super-alien than a divine being. Unless super-aliens are divine beings?
It’s been a long running claim of mine that, if we were able to scientifically prove the existence of god, it wouldn’t come anywhere close to the claims being made about it, and yet the believers would still be shouting, “See? We were right!” The claim that 90% of the world believes in god in one form or another is true only because “god” can mean anything at all.
LHCsays
I am totally rad, for a science machine, I mean…
Collidersays
Large Hadron Collider would make a good porn name (for a person or a film).
Biggest Fattest Whalesays
Sigmund, at #3: you are wrong. This comic is actually funny, and helps us to understand the fundamental property of MASS.
So there.
I want to win a contestsays
Man, I wanna win the SEED contest, and go to New York…which of the bloggers is the sexiest here? They’re the one I wanna have supper with (RAWR).
Anyway, Big Fat Whale is a funny comic strip, #3 Sigmund, so you better just accept that and move one.
you can't win if I win it (and that means you are a loser).says
Ha! My chance will defeat your chance, person at #90!
Also, the LHC is awesome. It’s large, it collides things, and is in Europe. That is the very definition of rad.
“Ow! My faith!” – reminds me of Teen Girl Squad from Homestarrunner.com. StrongBad should totally make a new version of TGS, “Teen God Squad” or something, modeled on creationists! Cheerleader, So-and-So, What’s Her Face, and The UGLY ONE should all correspond perfectly to characters in the fundamentalist ensemble.
Aren’t all the arguments about 10,000 volts being too little to harm anyone being a bit picky? My recollection is that all you have to do to make even much smaller voltages fatal is to throw some amperage into the mix.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but be gentle as I’ve had a rough day.
JohnnieCanuck, FCDsays
It was the length of the arc that was incompatible with the claimed voltage. No claims as to lethality that I saw.
Depending on how and where the voltage is applied and the current available, less than 100V can be lethal. For example, all that’s necessary is to put the heart into fibrillation.
JoJosays
Aren’t all the arguments about 10,000 volts being too little to harm anyone being a bit picky? My recollection is that all you have to do to make even much smaller voltages fatal is to throw some amperage into the mix.
Amps are how many electrons flow past a certain point per second. Volts is a measure of how much force that each electron is under. Think of water in a hose. A gallon a minute (think amps) just dribbles out if it is under low pressure (think voltage). But if you restrict the end of the hose, letting the pressure build up, the water can have more power (like watts), even though it is still only one gallon a minute. In fact the power can grow enormous as the pressure builds, to the point that a water knife can cut a sheet of glass. In the same manner as the voltage is increased a small amount of current can turn into a lot of watts.
“Depending on how and where the voltage is applied and the current available, less than 100V can be lethal.” – JohnnieCanuck, FCD, #94
OSHA and the National Electrical Code agree that lethality starts at 50 volts – below that, uninsulated energized conductors can be touched bare-handed.
And yes, nicknick bobick, milli-amperage is important. That’s why Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters trip at 5 milliamps. A few tens of milliamps at 110 volts will fry your heart’s command and control circuits irreparably.
Just a little side note that most people dont know, we operate in a field of two to three hundred volts nomatter where you are. Very true …you live in a field of voltage.
Epinephrinesays
Aren’t all the arguments about 10,000 volts being too little to harm anyone being a bit picky? My recollection is that all you have to do to make even much smaller voltages fatal is to throw some amperage into the mix.
My point was only that at 10,000V it couldn’t jump that far. And I was trying to be humourous by making a complaint about the realism of the arc, rather than the apparent zaping of a creationist:P
Sure, 110V can kill a person, but you basically have to touch the current source – if you want electricity to jump a meter (or more) through the air you need a lot more voltage.
Qsays
tsg, you waid “Being able to do the logically impossible is a condition of omnipotence that cannot be satisfied and it is unreasonable to insist that’s what god proponents mean when they claim god is omnipotent.”
Don’t all logical arguments start with some unprovables, typically called axioms or postulates? Isn’t it possible for a god – or some entity that is omnipotent (as in all powerful) – to modify those axioms and postulates at will, so that what was illogical is now logical, or that was mathematically impossible is now possible?
For instance, take a geometric proof that follows a construction of givens, followed by applied reasoning, and ends with a proof or disproof (ok, phrased weakly, but that isn’t the point.) If we assume that no givens include the axiom that “magic can happen”, then we could have consistent proofs. But, if to that omnipowerful being all givens can include “magic can happen”, then logic, as you were using the concept, doesn’t even need to exist for that being. Any set of premises can lead to any given outcome for that being.
BTW: I am an atheist, but I don’t like proofs against the conditions of a deity that are inconsistent with the terms being used, like omnipotent which by definition, doesn’t have limitations.
Sigmundsays
#89 Biggest Fattest Whale
I didn’t say the cartoon wasn’t funny, I said ‘I’ didnt find it funny. I guess living in Europe doesn’t expose me to sufficient monster truck rally or wrestling federation commercials (I presume that’s what its based on) to get the joke completely.
[shameless blogwhoring]
On the logic and god question, I have two posts at my blogsite currently dealing with that, including an amusing argument going on in the Part 1 post. Just click on my name – Part 2 is currently the top post and contains a link to Part 1)
[/shameless blogwhoring]
Rey Foxsays
Sigmund: Yeah, but “Ow, my faith!”? Made me laugh.
Plus, the silhouette in that panel is pretty clearly drawn from the symbol on the “Danger High Voltage” signs, which struck me as funny.
This hinges on a definition of “omnipotent” that means able to do the logically impossible like making a circle with corners or a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it. I haven’t run into anyone who claims it does.
I’ve run into a few. The scary part is that some of them appeared to be otherwise sane and well-adjusted.
Sphere Couplersays
RE; 97
In hopes that someone would catch this,my statement was general.Thr voltage drop across the Planetary Boundry Layer (the area of space where we mainly exist, you know, earths surface) is greater due to atmospheric contaminents(pollution)IE: aerosols. So tou may be opperating in a locally lower voltage in the cities during heavy trafic on cloudy days. Ever wonder why it feels so good to sleep in on these rainy days? Or have more energy on a sunny day?
David Marjanović, OMsays
Ever wonder why it feels so good to sleep in on these rainy days? Or have more energy on a sunny day?
Because sunlight leads to the destruction of melatonin in the brain, and lack of melatonin is awakeness and happiness. This is also why prolonged lack of light leads to winter depression.
Next question?
Sphere Couplersays
@106
You will have more energy even if you stay inside won’t you?
Sphere Couplersays
I won’t disagree with your statement that melatonin has the effect that you describe. I have a friend who takes melatonin pills to create drowsiness at bedtime.However we are electrical/chemical units that rely on electrical pressure to function.
David Marjanović, OMsays
You will have more energy even if you stay inside won’t you?
If you have windows, yes…
we are electrical/chemical units that rely on electrical pressure to function.
Come on. This is like saying “if the moon can move the oceans, surely it can move our mood”.
Sphere Couplersays
If the operational voltage field is set too high for a sustained period,One might think we would run around like the energizer bunny or speedy gonzoles…not so.Abnormalities will occur such as deformed cells.
If the opperational voltage field is set too low for a sustained period, One might think that we would freeze up like the tin man…not so.Abnormalities will occur such as deformed cells. If one could seperate the point particle from the wave form in the packet of sunlight,it would be the waveform that carries the energy that creates the field,that acts upon the subject.The voltage field we operate in has a functional parameter that under most natural conditions is conducive to life.
Sphere Couplersays
Let me try to clarify a concept.
If you observe water coming out of your garden hose in daylight(broad spectrum light)you will see a consistent flow of water.right? However, in total darkness take the same garden hose and view the water flow (output) with a different light source. A strobe light with a variable switch to increase and decrease the strobe effect.
This allows you to observe the true nature of delivery.
The water appears to flow in packets due to the tuning of your perceived flicker rate and the actual flow of water.
(SEE FLICKER RATE)
Sometimes what we perceive as continuous flow is actually intermittent. The same holds true for a 120volt/60hertz incandescent light bulb. Our perception allows us to see a continuous light source when in fact the light is flickering many many times per second due to the nature of electricity.
We were all taught in school that the light bulb glows because electricity heats the filament till it glows.Well this is what appears to happen.In reality the filament is engineered to act like a tiny fast acting switching device at just the right material quantities to allow the buildup and collapse (or the renormalization) of the atomic structure,thus a photon is released and strikes your eye.(light)
Now if you really want to take this concept further, every form of matter is made up of atoms and all atoms are subject to this flicker rate.If you could adjust your perception to the kitchen tables flicker rate it would seem to disappear. Of course all of its atoms would have to be in perfect harmony. Not at all likely to happen,but in the absolute extreme… possible.Is the table there or is it not?
If you could put on a pair of goggles that tuned out the 60hertz light bulb you would see darkness yet the person standing next to you without goggles would see the light.
Everything has a flicker rate/therefore everything can be (perceived) to go in and out of existence.And I would venture to say if everything were in harmony everything would in fact go in and out of existence.(Which is not possible according to my understanding of this knowledge)
It is this disturbance of harmony that allows our reality to be perceived. I would suspect that in the beginning (if there was one…inconclusive for me)all things were in harmony. And don;t get me started on that god thing cause that is a circular debate with no proof which will be decided upon my death or maybe it won’t.
My point is seeing the light and absorbing its fields are two different concepts.
Sphere Couplersays
@109
To make it easier to understand ask a sensitive, logical blind person if they have more energy when the sun shines.
Sphere Couplersays
Well there you have it, we are effected by fields, allthough for the most part in minor insignificant ways.
The general public has a hard time wrapping its head around this concept let alone a significant portion of the scientific community.However reality cannot be denied and I wish the sun would come out cause Im not getting anything done.
Marie the Bookwyrmsays
I’d just like to point out to all the experts on electricity that the creationist in the cartoon is being zapped with 10,000 volts of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which we all know is far more powerful than mere electricity. Right? :)
Isn’t arguing about points of religion like arguing who’s tougher — Superman or the Hulk?
Samantha Vimessays
Doesn’t the whole idea of lifting a rock or eating a burrito make the god in discussion sound– well, rather like a Greek or Norse god, a being of flesh and blood (or something like it), rather than something outside the universe of matter? If I were to imagine a Creator, he wouldn’t lift a rock at all– he would send other matter to gravitationally influence it, moving it to the point in the cosmos he wished it to be. And a burrito would be better eaten by a creature that needs the chemical energy to survive.
Not that I think that even such a being would be omnipotent in the broadest possible sense.
tsgsays
Don’t all logical arguments start with some unprovables, typically called axioms or postulates? Isn’t it possible for a god – or some entity that is omnipotent (as in all powerful) – to modify those axioms and postulates at will, so that what was illogical is now logical, or that was mathematically impossible is now possible?
I am not arguing that god necessarily is or isn’t bound by logic. I am arguing that, if god is bound by logic, it is unreasonable to assume the people who believe in it believe he isn’t, as the “rock so heavy he can’t lift it” paradox does. If god isn’t bound by logic, then, yes, he can make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it and also be able to lift it.
BTW: I am an atheist, but I don’t like proofs against the conditions of a deity that are inconsistent with the terms being used, like omnipotent which by definition, doesn’t have limitations.
By one definition, that’s the point. And that’s where the root of this argument really lies: what does “omnipotent” really mean, especially by those who use it to describe their god? The logically impossible god argument is, in essence, arguing that people who believe in an omnipotent god believe that god is and is not bound by logic at the same time.
In general, any argument that asserts what a particular group of people believes by way of the “real” meaning of a particular word is a very weak one.
tsgsays
Isn’t arguing about points of religion like arguing who’s tougher — Superman or the Hulk?
It’s more like arguing which one’s real and which one isn’t.
“OW! My faith!”
ROTFL
So their god failed to protect them from harm? “God’s Plan,” indeed!
It must be me, I don’t find that cartoon funny at all.
This, on the other hand, http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html
– now that’s funny.
Haha yeah that webcam is great
10,000 Volts = way better than comment registration
electric shock FTW!
This might be the single greatest thing on the internet.
‘Science just grew a pair!’ haha, I’m going to find a way to work that line into my day.
That webcam was pretty hilarious too, thanks for the link.
“Ow. My Faith!” Love it.
Question (which may not be appropriate for this forum, but since faith was brought up, what the hell): If, as many IDiots claim, evolution is guided by God(s) through intelligent design, why do those with copious amounts of faith experience just as much pain as the non-faithful? Seriously. If God(s) is designing the whole shebang, how hard would it be to link faithfulness with less pain, or better disease resistance, or less intelligence, or cancer resistence, or increased fertility? If we are intelligently designed, why is faith neither a selector nor a mitigator?
Just a weird question on my Wednesday. Sorry.
Last panel is really really good.
I also like the use of the Monster Truck Rally and/or ABC Sports Spectacular openings (“Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!….)
Billy @8
its because
a) God is a prick
b) God is a douche
c) God is a spaz
d) God doesn’t exist
Snarkiness aside, the usual god groupie answer is that God being able to do this, does not actually have to.
Naah. Unfortunately the physicists have taken to calling he Higgs Boson the “God particle” (God knows why). If they find it, the refugees from the 12th Century will start crowing that it’s proven the existence of the deity.
Cafeeine: Is that multiple choice or all of the above?
Higgs Boson….
Wasn’t he that butler/receptionist guy in _Charlie’s Angels_?
You can also monitor the LHC vis-a-vis the earth’s existence here: http://www.hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/.
Cue Millhouse:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhhh… my glasses!
Oh, that meme dates much further back than that. I remember radio ads for drag races back in the mid-1960s that were all about “Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! Funny cars!! Top fuel dragsters! Sunday!”
Billy #8:
how hard would it be to link faithfulness with less pain, or better disease resistance, or less intelligence
I believe he may already have achieved the latter…
Really funny, loved the webcam too, going to show that to a couple of my friends who have been spazing out over the LHC destroying existence as paranoid stoners will do, should scare the shit out of them.
What, no invisible god shield around the religious cretin?
Really funny, loved the webcam too, going to show that to a couple of my friends who have been spazing out over the LHC destroying existence as paranoid stoners will do, should scare the shit out of them.
oops double post.
Billy
That was multiple choice .
ROTFLMAO!
I want to ride a vandograff-o-saurus to class!
/spits coffee on the monitor and out through the nose
hahahhaha
Ha! Great. Of course, whenever I think about monster trucks, I think of this.
That is SPECTACULAR!
Yoink!
Cafeeine @ #11 typed: “…the usual god groupie answer is that God being able to do this, does not actually have to.”
Nicolas Everitt in his book, The Non Existence of God points out that the word “GOD” is not a title but rather a metaphysical descriptor. Under Abrahamic theism, the “GOD” notion is deemed metaphysically necessary, so it cannot stop being “GOD”. To be “GOD”, it must exert all its powers continuously. If the “GOD” being were to cease exerting one of its powers, it would no longer be “GOD”. This means “GOD”, if it exists, cannot commit suicide or lay aside its powers. But an omnipotent being should be able to terminate itself or lay aside its powers. Therefore, an omnipotent “GOD” cannot exist.
Sigh – if only we could arrange for something similar here, that would certainly be one way of taking care of the troll infestation problem PZ was worrying about earlier!
This hinges on a definition of “omnipotent” that means able to do the logically impossible like making a circle with corners or a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it. I haven’t run into anyone who claims it does.
“It must be me, I don’t find that cartoon funny at all.
This, on the other hand, http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html
– now that’s funny.”
Maybe I’m a humourless dork, but I don’t really find “the big bad scientists are going to kill us all” style jokes to be particularly funny. Stinks of the frankenstein myth to me.
#3: That webcam is wonderful!
Howdy all – totally off topic but I just accidently wandered into Matt Nisbet’s place (I meant to click on Evolving Thoughts and missed…) and noticed the latest post wherein he (yet again) can’t resist swiping at PZ and Dawkins. That guy needs to get another hobby.
wait
What?
Frankenstein is a myth?
I saw the webcam as laughing at, rather than with, the WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!1! tabloid hysteria. That’s what made it so funny.
That was hilarious.
David Morgan-Mar has leaked the first results from the LHC: Darwin got it right!
This…
http://www.b3ta.com/links/Jesus_Is_My_Friend
… on the other hand, is truly truly scary!
holy shit
That’s both the greatest and most terrifying video ever.
Hello friends: What do you think?
If the Higgs boson particle is confirmed as real, will that be usable as an argument against the notion that a creator “GOD” exists. The notion of a creator includes the proposition that the alleged “GOD” entity “sustains” or “holds” or “maintains” into existence which is taken for reality. Part of that would be why matter has mass. If mass is a natural phenomenon that results from the action of Higgs bosons and a scalar field, then mass is not the product of religious magic nor a super-natural occurrence. Then the alleged “GOD” entity does not “sustain” or “hold” or “maintain” into existence which is taken for reality. Consequently, “GOD” could not exist.
Does this seem in any way like a valid argument? Could this be structured as a sound argument against “GOD” belief?
I think they’ve been watching too many “scientists mucking about with things they don’t understand, layperson-hero saves the world” movies.
Just once I want to see a movie where the panicky believer complaining about scientists “playing god” turns out to be utterly wrong.
That’s what I loved about Scooby-Doo: the critical thinkers were always the ones to figure it out.
‘Science just grew a pair!’
Nose-clearingly funny.
Honestly, compared other end-of-world scenarios (nuclear war, large asteroid hitting the earth, global climate change, massive epidemics), most of which are far more likely to occur than any LHC-induced disaster, I have to say the possibility of being sucked into a black hole sounds like a pretty benign way for it all to end.
“If we are intelligently designed, why is faith neither a selector nor a mitigator?” – Billy @8
Some responses I’ve heard:
– God makes life difficult to test our faith, because faith has no value if it is not tested. The more faithful you are, the MORE difficult your life should be. It’s only the truly faithful who are worthy of the most aggravated trials. To not be afflicted, is to be denied an opportunity to try your faith.
– Affliction only causes despair in the unfaithful. The faithful have nothing to fear from affliction. God has created affliction without bias. It is us who choose – and only those who chose faith can pass through with an ear splitting grin.
…and so on.
Ryan:
You’ve provided evidence that humor is subjective. The clip you thought was funny was derivitive and hackneyed. “Oh look! A black hole! Gee I guess the idiots were right about the accelerator.”
Now if they had done something totally unexpected, it might have elicited a chuckle from me; but that’s just me. Whatever.
I’ll admit to being a bit disturbed by the last panel…
[pedant]How on earth can they seriously suggest that it’s only 10,000 volts? That’s only a couple of inches of arc. The Van de Graaff generator we used to make hair stand on end generated about 400,000 volts.
The creationist victim there is presumably an adult, and the visible section of the arc is at least that person’s height – and may extend a long way out of the frame. If we asssume a meter long arc and 1kV/mm arc length, one needs 1,000,000V to make that arc. I suspect that the voltage is off by between 3-4 orders of magnitude.[/pedant]
The prerequisite to any argument against god is a claim about what it actually is. My stock reply to “do you believe in god?” is “define god.” I’ve yet to get an answer of any substance.
Have I mentioned we’re about to get the shit beat out of us by Hurricane Ike? Life in Texas – if it’s not the idiot religionists, it’s nature that will bring you down.
Scooter? I assume you’re no longer in Houston.
“The notion of a creator includes the proposition that the alleged “GOD” entity “sustains” or “holds” or “maintains” into existence which is taken for reality. […] Could this be structured as a sound argument against “GOD” belief?” – robert_b aka libertarianbob @40
It could be fashioned into an argument against a god that is alleged to sustain, hold, or maintain existence. Not every god is endowed with this power though, so it can’t be fashioned into a general argument against all gods – only against a god with that specific characteristic.
Does this seem in any way like a valid argument? Could this be structured as a sound argument against “GOD” belief?
no.
as noted by tsg, “moving the goalposts” and shooting for the next available gap to play “hide the god” is part and parcel of theists.
I’m sure their response would be along the lines of:
“well, god created those particles specifically in order for the property of “mass” to exist.”
there simply is no way to prove a non-existent entity actually does not exist.
nor should sane people even attempt the endeavor.
;)
Hello tsg (#30)
Thanks for your comment. Everitt worked through several versions and scholarly definitions of omnipotence in “The Non Existence of God”. None of those he argued against can be defended. In The Impossibility of God J.L. Cowan in his “Paradox of Omnipotence” essays effectively reveals the clay feet several other theistic philosophers employ in their definitions of omnipotence.
But your point is well taken. Consider omnipotence as defined as the capabilities of a being logically consistent with all its other metaphysical properties. If we then posit a being whose power is that can not do anything at all, that being would be omnipotent since doing nothing would be consistent with all its metaphysical properties. This definition of omnipotence then fails.
Yet, it still seems very reasonable to imagine that an all-powerful being should be able to terminate itself or lay aside its powers. However, a necessary and “eternal” being could not do those things. This then is the contradiction that renders omnipotence non-cognitive.
tsg typed: “This hinges on a definition of “omnipotent” that means able to do the logically impossible like making a circle with corners or a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it.”
While I cannot make a circle with corners, I can form a mass of concrete too heavy for me to lift. Thus, I can do something an omnipotent being cannot. Otherwise, if omnipotence is defined in a prescriptive manner, then the omnipotent being can be imagined as able to declare itself unable (in a legal sense) to lift an arbitrarily small weight. The super-heavy rock situation would then be no limitation to omnipotence. But by legislating against itself to restrict its capabilities, “GOD” would be effectively laying aside its power and rendering itself non-existent, since “GOD” is defined as a necessary and eternal being. So then “GOD” must be able to make a rock so heavy it cannot be lifted. Omnipotence is then non-cognitive, and “GOD” cannot exist.
I am surprised no one mentioned this so far:
Ha…nice comic…but Here’s the real truth behind the LHC!!!
That guy is a treasure trove of “teh dumb”.
tsg: “My stock reply to “do you believe in god?” is “define god.” I’ve yet to get an answer of any substance.”
George H. Smith in Atheism: The Case Against God makes that very point. He recommended that in conversation with theists that the goal should be to get the believer to commit to a specific definition of deity. As you point out, almost all theists are loath to do so. They, but especially the open theism or process theology people, wish to equivocate on what “GOD” means. It is quite humorous to witness their squirming writhing efforts to escape self-contradiction.
Does anyone have any idea who paid for the “Has the LHC destroyed the universe?” ads It’s normally big corporate types with ads on Sb, no?
I disagree. An omnipotent being that has the ability to terminate its own existence but chooses not to would be eternal. Not using an ability does not mean it is not capable of using it. A not unreasonable definition of “all powerful” is “able to do whatever he chooses to” and by simply not choosing to do something, does not lose any power. In fact, I would think that omnipotence, in addition to having the ability to do anything he wants, would have to also include the ability to not do anything he doesn’t want.
I was referring to a well-known paradox often used in arguments against god: If god is all powerful, can he make a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it? If he can, then there is a limit to his power because he can’t lift the rock and thus he is not all powerful. If he can’t, then that is a limit on his power and thus he is not all powerful. It is self-contradictory in that he would have to simultaneously be able and unable to lift a rock and therefore logically impossible. It only holds if “omnipotence” includes the ability to perform the logically impossible. Very many people will argue that it doesn’t.
I have taken to telling people that I am ignostic. That is, where the theist says, “god exists”, the agnostic says “I don’t/can’t know if god exists”, and the atheist says, “god does not exist”, the ignostic says “I don’t know what you mean when you say ‘god exists'”. (I realize this is a gross simplification of these viewpoints.)
I can’t tell you whether I believe a thing or not until you can tell me what it is I’m supposed to believe. I have no desire to play theistic whack-a-mole.
Cervantes #12:
I have heard that the physicist in question originally called it the “goddamn” particle, and it was shortened in the first press release.
I have also heard it said that it is so described because like “god” the Higgs boson, while supposedly existing everywhere, is remarkably hard to find.
@ tsg, 57:
I think that the point that robert b was making with him being able to create a mass of concrete that he cannot lift, and an omnipotent being not being able too…well, for a silly mortal human to be able to do something a supposedly omnipotent being can’t? That’s rather…stupid.
You say that “It only holds if “omnipotence” includes the ability to perform the logically impossible. Very many people will argue that it doesn’t.”
but I think he was trying to say that any definition must include the ability to perform the logical impossible or the definition of omnipotence becomes rather, well, silly.
robert_b aka libertarianbob :”My stock reply to “do you believe in god?” is “define god.” I’ve yet to get an answer of any substance.”
Your Divine Pal Who’s Fun To Be With!
In association with the “Monsters Of Science” concert tour:
Buckaroo Banzai and The Hong Kong Cavaliers, with special guest artist/astrophysicist Brian May, Ph.D (formerly with QUEEN). MC Hawking and Dark Matter, with special guest AlpineKat (“LHC Rap”).
Being able to do the logically impossible is a condition of omnipotence that cannot be satisfied and it is unreasonable to insist that’s what god proponents mean when they claim god is omnipotent. In short, it is a definition chosen solely for the sake of making it impossible to achieve.
It’s a No True Scotsman fallacy: it’s attempting to prove god doesn’t exist by defining god as something that cannot exist and not as the claimed supernatural deity that, for example, created the universe, personally guides events, and rewards or punishes behavior by those occupying it. In the end, all it says is “the logically impossible is impossible” and no longer has anything to do with god.
The “microwave a burrito so hot that not even he can eat it” type arguments aren’t meant to argue against all gods though, just against omnipotent ones (indeed against omnipotent anythings). And they are stronger than the simple “God can’t make 0=1” arguments because they show there must be things which ARE logically possible and yet the god can’t do (because together with the ability to do some other logically possible task it produces a logical contradiction).
Also IIRC correctly the most common understanding of omnipotence amongst Sunni muslims is the strongest version – that God can suspend the laws of logic and make 0=1.
All it does is disprove one particular definition of “omnipotent” specifically chosen for its ease of being disproved.
Hmm I don’t know that it is a definition of “omnipotent” that exists as a strawman though. I think it – there is nothing (which in itself is) logically possible that God cannot do- is what most people will think “omnipotent” is until they here an argument like that.
More nuanced “omniscience”s were only developed by people who knew why the naive version didn’t hold up. From what I’ve read other versions of omniscience are either really very much weaker (such as “all-powerful” in the sense of much stronger than any other entity) or they are open to more subtle take downs built on the burrito argument
But that is precisely the point. The logically impossible god argument only holds against gods that are defined to be logically impossible. In other words, that which is logically impossible cannot exist. The Everitt argument which spawned this debate is, in fact, only arguing against a logically impossible god, not god in general as it implies it does by using the term “omnipotent”.
That is also the point. Those who insist on a logically impossible god existing will fall prey to the logically impossible god argument. I don’t think it is unreasonable for a person to modify his belief from “god who can do anything” to “god who can do anything that is not logically impossible”. And, in fact, the more rational of the god proponents will do exactly that. To those, the argument doesn’t apply.
The statement “an omnipotent god cannot exist”, as Everrit’s argument concludes, is more accurately restated “a logically impossible god cannot exist” and ceases to be meaningful.
So an omnipotent god is nonetheless hostage to logic? Doesn’t that mean that such a being didn’t in fact create logic, and thus that logic (and presumably mathematics) necessarily existed prior to such a being? So where did the rules of logic come from, if not an omnipotent creator?
Anyone remember the Twilight Zone story where the devil appears to a mathematician who announced that he’d “sell my soul for the answer to this formula”.
The devil told him that the only way out of his damnation would be to ask him a question he couldn’t answer or to perform an impossible task. The devil then reminded the poor guy that he could do anything and go anywhere, even in time, and always come back unharmed.
The mathematician thought for a moment, and then said, “I know something you can’t do. GET LOST!”
(I wrote a poem about it – but beware, it’s a bit long-winded, in a Lewis Carroll sort of way)
So, in other words, an omnipotent being cannot exist, unless you “weaken” the definition of omnipotent. Well, personally I’m not in favor of weakening definitions like that, but I’ll accept the argument. It does make me wonder, though: In the create-a-rock-god-cannot-lift example, would our hypothetical nearly-but-not-quite omnipotent god be able to create the rock, but not lift it, or unable to create it? I’m sure it’d be an interesting point for theologians to discuss about…well, if our hypothetical god had an actual religion.
Of course, if I were to believe in an omnipotent god (omnipotent in the “strong” sense) I’d argue that there is no problem. I’d claim that the human mind, and thus human logic is too limited to comprehend the greatness of my god and blablabla, I’m sure you’ve heard it all before. Come to think of it, it sounds rather like saying “you’re just too stupid to understand my invisible friend!” which sounds kind of stupid…glad I don’t believe in silly things like that :)
Oh! I’ve just thought of the most convoluted solution to the rock-problem! See, when god is posed with such a ‘challenge’, the Universe actually splits in 2! Then, in 1 Universe, God can lift the rock he just created, and in the other one, He can’t! But the God in both universes is still the same God because God is omnipresent in the entire Multiverse! Yeah, that makes perfect sense! I should be a theologian! :P
On a final note, I wouldn’t say the sentence “a logically impossible god cannot exist” is meaningless. I mean, it get rids of the totally omnipotent Gods who COULD vanquish all evil but don’t want to despite being benevolent.
Aaah, I’ve typed too much, and losing my train of thought. Let’s just see if the quoting works.
Pretty much, yes.
You’re assuming that logic, mathematics and an omnipotent creator need creating. More specifically, logic and mathematics are formalized rules describing abstract concepts and is the reason they are the only two disciplines where something can be proven, using the strict definition of the word.
As for god, I’ll be the first to argue that if god didn’t need to be created then it punches a hole in the claim that the universe needed god to create it, but that is an argument that defeats the necessity of god, not its logical possibility.
@46
That was my reaction too. I’ve got a tiny Van de Graff generator that does 200,000 volts. 10 is bug squat. To toss an arc like that you’d need more than a few megavolts. Better to use a Tesla coil to kill that faith.
Logic and math don’t need creating? In other words, the logic and math of our universe are an absolutely necessary feature of any possible world, and a omnipotent god couldn’t change them?
I don’t see it as weakening the definition, but rather the real, what-people-really-mean-when-they-say-“omnipotent” definition. I don’t think “more powerful than any other being could be” is an unreasonable view and still pretty god-like.
Not a theologian by any means, but I would think our hypothetical, can-do-anything-that’s-not-logically-impossible god could make a rock of any size and lift a rock of any size. I think that is a more apt description of god-like power than an ability to perform a logically impossible, but pointless feat.
Not necessarily. Refusing to eliminate all evil does not preclude a god from being benevolent if it turns out it’s better for us in the long run.
Logic and math are abstract concepts. They don’t physically exist.
i did gotted zappd.
o rly?
ya feel betta.
“Love” is an abstract concept, as are “hope” and “salvation” and “sin”. Are you saying an omnipotent creator has no role in creating those things either?
No.
‘kay, so now our god is The Most Powerful Being That Could Hypothetically Exist. Hmm. Well, ok, that’s not unreasonable.
Well, that makes sense. Also, that’s a great way of crushing the unbelievers! Wait, this god doesn’t exist, so I can’t ask it to crush all the people I don’t like or disagree with. Curses.
Under some religious systems this would be an acceptable explanation. Under others (the agree with us or BURN FOREVER types. Those gods are probably not benevolent though…), not so much. But that only applies to some specific religions & requires an in my eyes rather odd definition of ‘benevolent’ so the argument holds.
Ok! You’ve convinced me that there could hypothetically exist a really powerful sort of entity that might even be able to, through some as ofyet unknown mechanism, manipulate the laws of physics to some extent. Honestly though, it sounds more like some kind of super-alien than a divine being. Unless super-aliens are divine beings?
tgs, your terse response wasn’t clear — as abstract concepts, are “love” and “hope” uncreatable by an omnipotent being, just as logic and math aren’t?
OT, OT as the thread has twisted, there are a couple of Sci-Fi stories I know of that are pertinent: speculations on the behaviour/effects of loose singularities:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/30/194618.php
which kinda’ sucks,
and
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/b/david-brin/earth.htm
which actually cooks some science ideas, making a credible case that a sufficiently small black hole can’t immediately hurt the planet. The STORY doesn’t really hold together though.
Jus’ sayin’
ROTFLMAO!
and im not an atheist
I didn’t say they were uncreatable. I was challenging your notion that they had to be.
Clarification: I was challenging your notion that they had to be created.
@ Billy #8 — more faith = less pain is the proposition of so-called “Prosperity Theology”. God blesses the faithful with material comfort, and as to the less faithful….You get the idea.
Such hypocrisy and narcissism boggle the mind.
Said another way, omnipotent, or all powerful, simply means possessing all the power it is possible to have. The same way omnidirectional doesn’t include directions that don’t exist, omnipotent shouldn’t have to include powers that can’t be had.
Yes, obviously. It really comes down to what a particular believer claims god is. Mostly my point, and the reason for my calling myself ignostic, is there can be no universal argument against god because there is no universal claim of what god is. It’s a catch-all term that is truly meaningless. Also, there are enough valid arguments why any particular god doesn’t exist that we don’t need to resort to the invalid ones. A logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy, even if you agree with what it’s trying to prove, and if we’re going to call them out when the other side advances them, we also have to call them out when our side does.
It’s been a long running claim of mine that, if we were able to scientifically prove the existence of god, it wouldn’t come anywhere close to the claims being made about it, and yet the believers would still be shouting, “See? We were right!” The claim that 90% of the world believes in god in one form or another is true only because “god” can mean anything at all.
I am totally rad, for a science machine, I mean…
Large Hadron Collider would make a good porn name (for a person or a film).
Sigmund, at #3: you are wrong. This comic is actually funny, and helps us to understand the fundamental property of MASS.
So there.
Man, I wanna win the SEED contest, and go to New York…which of the bloggers is the sexiest here? They’re the one I wanna have supper with (RAWR).
Anyway, Big Fat Whale is a funny comic strip, #3 Sigmund, so you better just accept that and move one.
Ha! My chance will defeat your chance, person at #90!
Also, the LHC is awesome. It’s large, it collides things, and is in Europe. That is the very definition of rad.
“Ow! My faith!” – reminds me of Teen Girl Squad from Homestarrunner.com. StrongBad should totally make a new version of TGS, “Teen God Squad” or something, modeled on creationists! Cheerleader, So-and-So, What’s Her Face, and The UGLY ONE should all correspond perfectly to characters in the fundamentalist ensemble.
Teen Girl Squad #1 (“Ow! My skin!”)
Teen Girl Squad #3 (“Ow! My stomach lining!”)
Aren’t all the arguments about 10,000 volts being too little to harm anyone being a bit picky? My recollection is that all you have to do to make even much smaller voltages fatal is to throw some amperage into the mix.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but be gentle as I’ve had a rough day.
It was the length of the arc that was incompatible with the claimed voltage. No claims as to lethality that I saw.
Depending on how and where the voltage is applied and the current available, less than 100V can be lethal. For example, all that’s necessary is to put the heart into fibrillation.
Amps are how many electrons flow past a certain point per second. Volts is a measure of how much force that each electron is under. Think of water in a hose. A gallon a minute (think amps) just dribbles out if it is under low pressure (think voltage). But if you restrict the end of the hose, letting the pressure build up, the water can have more power (like watts), even though it is still only one gallon a minute. In fact the power can grow enormous as the pressure builds, to the point that a water knife can cut a sheet of glass. In the same manner as the voltage is increased a small amount of current can turn into a lot of watts.
“Depending on how and where the voltage is applied and the current available, less than 100V can be lethal.” – JohnnieCanuck, FCD, #94
OSHA and the National Electrical Code agree that lethality starts at 50 volts – below that, uninsulated energized conductors can be touched bare-handed.
And yes, nicknick bobick, milli-amperage is important. That’s why Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters trip at 5 milliamps. A few tens of milliamps at 110 volts will fry your heart’s command and control circuits irreparably.
But get down into the microamp (millionths of an amp) range and the fun begins – see, for instance, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH17nt1FEbs
Just a little side note that most people dont know, we operate in a field of two to three hundred volts nomatter where you are. Very true …you live in a field of voltage.
My point was only that at 10,000V it couldn’t jump that far. And I was trying to be humourous by making a complaint about the realism of the arc, rather than the apparent zaping of a creationist:P
Sure, 110V can kill a person, but you basically have to touch the current source – if you want electricity to jump a meter (or more) through the air you need a lot more voltage.
tsg, you waid “Being able to do the logically impossible is a condition of omnipotence that cannot be satisfied and it is unreasonable to insist that’s what god proponents mean when they claim god is omnipotent.”
Don’t all logical arguments start with some unprovables, typically called axioms or postulates? Isn’t it possible for a god – or some entity that is omnipotent (as in all powerful) – to modify those axioms and postulates at will, so that what was illogical is now logical, or that was mathematically impossible is now possible?
For instance, take a geometric proof that follows a construction of givens, followed by applied reasoning, and ends with a proof or disproof (ok, phrased weakly, but that isn’t the point.) If we assume that no givens include the axiom that “magic can happen”, then we could have consistent proofs. But, if to that omnipowerful being all givens can include “magic can happen”, then logic, as you were using the concept, doesn’t even need to exist for that being. Any set of premises can lead to any given outcome for that being.
BTW: I am an atheist, but I don’t like proofs against the conditions of a deity that are inconsistent with the terms being used, like omnipotent which by definition, doesn’t have limitations.
#89 Biggest Fattest Whale
I didn’t say the cartoon wasn’t funny, I said ‘I’ didnt find it funny. I guess living in Europe doesn’t expose me to sufficient monster truck rally or wrestling federation commercials (I presume that’s what its based on) to get the joke completely.
[shameless blogwhoring]
On the logic and god question, I have two posts at my blogsite currently dealing with that, including an amusing argument going on in the Part 1 post. Just click on my name – Part 2 is currently the top post and contains a link to Part 1)
[/shameless blogwhoring]
Sigmund: Yeah, but “Ow, my faith!”? Made me laugh.
Plus, the silhouette in that panel is pretty clearly drawn from the symbol on the “Danger High Voltage” signs, which struck me as funny.
My own little creationist cartoon
I’ve run into a few. The scary part is that some of them appeared to be otherwise sane and well-adjusted.
RE; 97
In hopes that someone would catch this,my statement was general.Thr voltage drop across the Planetary Boundry Layer (the area of space where we mainly exist, you know, earths surface) is greater due to atmospheric contaminents(pollution)IE: aerosols. So tou may be opperating in a locally lower voltage in the cities during heavy trafic on cloudy days. Ever wonder why it feels so good to sleep in on these rainy days? Or have more energy on a sunny day?
Because sunlight leads to the destruction of melatonin in the brain, and lack of melatonin is awakeness and happiness. This is also why prolonged lack of light leads to winter depression.
Next question?
@106
You will have more energy even if you stay inside won’t you?
I won’t disagree with your statement that melatonin has the effect that you describe. I have a friend who takes melatonin pills to create drowsiness at bedtime.However we are electrical/chemical units that rely on electrical pressure to function.
If you have windows, yes…
Come on. This is like saying “if the moon can move the oceans, surely it can move our mood”.
If the operational voltage field is set too high for a sustained period,One might think we would run around like the energizer bunny or speedy gonzoles…not so.Abnormalities will occur such as deformed cells.
If the opperational voltage field is set too low for a sustained period, One might think that we would freeze up like the tin man…not so.Abnormalities will occur such as deformed cells. If one could seperate the point particle from the wave form in the packet of sunlight,it would be the waveform that carries the energy that creates the field,that acts upon the subject.The voltage field we operate in has a functional parameter that under most natural conditions is conducive to life.
Let me try to clarify a concept.
If you observe water coming out of your garden hose in daylight(broad spectrum light)you will see a consistent flow of water.right? However, in total darkness take the same garden hose and view the water flow (output) with a different light source. A strobe light with a variable switch to increase and decrease the strobe effect.
This allows you to observe the true nature of delivery.
The water appears to flow in packets due to the tuning of your perceived flicker rate and the actual flow of water.
(SEE FLICKER RATE)
Sometimes what we perceive as continuous flow is actually intermittent. The same holds true for a 120volt/60hertz incandescent light bulb. Our perception allows us to see a continuous light source when in fact the light is flickering many many times per second due to the nature of electricity.
We were all taught in school that the light bulb glows because electricity heats the filament till it glows.Well this is what appears to happen.In reality the filament is engineered to act like a tiny fast acting switching device at just the right material quantities to allow the buildup and collapse (or the renormalization) of the atomic structure,thus a photon is released and strikes your eye.(light)
Now if you really want to take this concept further, every form of matter is made up of atoms and all atoms are subject to this flicker rate.If you could adjust your perception to the kitchen tables flicker rate it would seem to disappear. Of course all of its atoms would have to be in perfect harmony. Not at all likely to happen,but in the absolute extreme… possible.Is the table there or is it not?
If you could put on a pair of goggles that tuned out the 60hertz light bulb you would see darkness yet the person standing next to you without goggles would see the light.
Everything has a flicker rate/therefore everything can be (perceived) to go in and out of existence.And I would venture to say if everything were in harmony everything would in fact go in and out of existence.(Which is not possible according to my understanding of this knowledge)
It is this disturbance of harmony that allows our reality to be perceived. I would suspect that in the beginning (if there was one…inconclusive for me)all things were in harmony. And don;t get me started on that god thing cause that is a circular debate with no proof which will be decided upon my death or maybe it won’t.
My point is seeing the light and absorbing its fields are two different concepts.
@109
To make it easier to understand ask a sensitive, logical blind person if they have more energy when the sun shines.
Well there you have it, we are effected by fields, allthough for the most part in minor insignificant ways.
The general public has a hard time wrapping its head around this concept let alone a significant portion of the scientific community.However reality cannot be denied and I wish the sun would come out cause Im not getting anything done.
I’d just like to point out to all the experts on electricity that the creationist in the cartoon is being zapped with 10,000 volts of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which we all know is far more powerful than mere electricity. Right? :)
Isn’t arguing about points of religion like arguing who’s tougher — Superman or the Hulk?
Doesn’t the whole idea of lifting a rock or eating a burrito make the god in discussion sound– well, rather like a Greek or Norse god, a being of flesh and blood (or something like it), rather than something outside the universe of matter? If I were to imagine a Creator, he wouldn’t lift a rock at all– he would send other matter to gravitationally influence it, moving it to the point in the cosmos he wished it to be. And a burrito would be better eaten by a creature that needs the chemical energy to survive.
Not that I think that even such a being would be omnipotent in the broadest possible sense.
I am not arguing that god necessarily is or isn’t bound by logic. I am arguing that, if god is bound by logic, it is unreasonable to assume the people who believe in it believe he isn’t, as the “rock so heavy he can’t lift it” paradox does. If god isn’t bound by logic, then, yes, he can make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it and also be able to lift it.
By one definition, that’s the point. And that’s where the root of this argument really lies: what does “omnipotent” really mean, especially by those who use it to describe their god? The logically impossible god argument is, in essence, arguing that people who believe in an omnipotent god believe that god is and is not bound by logic at the same time.
In general, any argument that asserts what a particular group of people believes by way of the “real” meaning of a particular word is a very weak one.
It’s more like arguing which one’s real and which one isn’t.