From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:10:35 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct7.215456.13828@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
>Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence
>Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:54:56 GMT

>In article <BvrCsu.AwC@news.udel.edu> absolut@ravel.udel.edu (Jamie D. Campbell) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.145235.3208@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>>>>       Omniscience would require that "God" can read minds and predict
>>>>the future.  I do not see how this is possible even though He/She/It
>>>>did create the human mind and can alter the future.  I think this rules
>>>>out omniscience.

>>>Because _you_ don't see how it's done, this proves that it can't be done? A
>>>little weak, that. 

>>      Personally, I don't believe in God, so I think the entire question
>>is moot.  However, omniscience has not yet been proven to be a capability 
>>of any being, so the burden of proof doesn't lie on me.  I imagine that 
>>would be the "believer's" responsibility.  Correct?

>No. We're discussing what God would be like if he _did_ exist. Or to put it
>another way, we're discussing the characteristics of the being whom you
>deny exists. For example, we can discuss how many horns a unicorn has,
>though no unicorns exist. We are also discussing whether or not it is
>_possible_ for God to exist, given the characteristics we ascribe to God.

>If I understand you correctly (and I may be misunderstanding you), you are
>arguing that God doesn't exist because it's impossible for any being to be
>omniscient. If this is indeed your contention, then it does require
>argument, for you are making a positive assertion: God cannot exist because
>no being can be omniscient. 

>Your argument is something like asserting that unicorns can't exist because
>unicorns have only one horn on their heads, and there is a biological
>reason why no mammal can grow a single horn. Quite apart from the question
>of whether unicorns do or do not exist, your contention requires an
>argument. You must cite the "biological reason" and state why it's a good
>reason. If it turns out that your argument is inadequate, then it does not,
>of course, follow that unicorns exist--only that it is not impossible for
>them to exist on account of the reason you gave. Similarly, if you are
>wrong about your contention that God cannot exist because no being can be
>omniscient, then it does not, of course, follow that God exists--merely
>that it is not impossible for him to exist on account of the reason you
>cited.

>You say that it hasn't been proven that omniscience is a "capability of any
>being". This is like saying that God hasn't been proven to exist--something
>I freely grant. It is not, however, a reason for saying that he has been
>proven _not_ to exist. Likewise, it won't do to assert that an omniscient
>being is inconceivable.  This would be like saying that a chiliagon
>(Descartes' thousand-sided polygon) can't exist because no one can
>visualize one.


 No no no. There is all the logical difference in the world between 
imaginability and conceivability, which I should have thought that even 
a casual reading of Descartes or even a modicum of philosophy would 
have taught you. If a set of properties can be shown to be mutually 
incompatible or uncombinable in a subject, then "for some x, x is ABC" is 
*necessarily* false. It is not claimed that God cannot be pictured, as it 
were in our "mind's eye"--or imagined--as violating rules of logic and 
intelligible discourse. I'm not saying here that conceivability is the
final criterion either, but we must certainly not confuse the two.



>-- 
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
>Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc