Is Atheism True?

Mike Jones

Rebuttal 2

Mikes Statement : Second, the definition of omnipotence I provided in the OS was "Unmodified classical theism says god's omnipotence means god is capable of doing anything that is logically possible."  Again, Brent did not voice in his rebuttal any disagreement with that definition, so it is rational for me to proceed under the assumption that Maundy agrees with me that omnipotence is the ABILITY to do anything that is logically possible." 

Brent response: Mike has an uncanning ability to confuse things. I do not agree with Mike that "omnipotence is the ABILITY to do anything that is logically possible." I rebut that in 4 ways:

Brent Rebuttal 1) Logic is reason conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity that men define. God is not bound by man's finite logic simply because God created all things including the ability of man to reason. Therefore God has no reason to limit himself to his creation abilities. That is absurd. His omnipotence still stands.

Mike:  Brent's false belief that his god is "not bound by man's finite logic" appears to arise from a desperate defense mechanism that would rather have a god more akin to something out of Alice in Wonderland (i.e., not subject to man's finite logic) than a god that can be meaningfully discussed.   If logic doesn't apply or constrain god, then the law of non-contradiction need not apply, in which case god could be both god and not god at the same time in the same way.  How open is Brent to the possibility that such illogical things might be true about god?  Not at all.  So while Brent is preaching about how far above logic his god is, he secretly realizes the utter foolishness that would abound if he were to be taken seriously.

Brent's ridiculous belief in a god-above-logic also necessarily implies that language about god that is subject to human logic, such as human language will not be able to meaningfully impart knowledge of god.  If god is above human logic, then human language will never be adequate to impart to the human mind a correct picture of god, at which point such limitations in human language defeat any attempted discussion of god.  But no, Brent continues to use human language about god as if this is supposed to be regarded by other humans as a correct portrayal of a god that cannot be adequately defined by limited human logic language.

Brent Rebuttal 2) If Mikes statement is true then I can claim that it is "logically possible" for me to steal food at the local grocery because I am hungry and I have the ability (no relatives will feed me) and I need to feed my family because I'm poor. While that is a logical statement it does not make me omnipotent nor is it morally right, even though the logical consequence of being hungry is to seek food to survive.

Mike: I have never stated or implied that god's omnipotence derives from the mere fact that many things are logically possible.  I said the proper definition of omnipotence is an ABILITY TO DO whatever is logically possible.  Brent mischaracterizes my definition by leaving out the "ability to do" part. 

Brent Rebuttal 3) Logic is only as good as to the principles that it is applied too. I reiterate that God is outside of space and time, being the creator of them both. Whether God chooses to do something or not do, it is at his discretion, not ours. Regardless if we think it is logical or not as well.

Mike:  that is not helpful in the least, since we are debating whether the god of classical theism constitutes a logical impossibility.  God's actions being governed by his own discretion does nothing to advance this discussion.

Brent Rebuttal 4) As Mike has so nicely provided, parts of scripture show that God can and does change his mind but at other times he carries out his will. That has nothing to do with the ability to do anything that is logically possible.

Mike: correct, it doesn't relate to god being capable of anything logically possible, it relates to god having infallible exhaustive foreknowledge, one of the divine attributes that was the subject of the syllogism in my opening speech.  If god has infallible exhaustive foreknowledge, then the scenes in that foreknowledge cannot fail to come to pass in real life.  Yet we see many times in scripture that god changed his mind or delayed the original date he planned to do something.  Did god infallibly foreknow the true date Hezekiah would die?  If so, how can scripture be correct to say that god "added" 15 years to his life?  That could only mean that god "added" 15 years to the date god infallibly foreknew Hezekiah would die.  The only way to preserve the Christian view of scriptural accuracy and yet explain this data is to say that God wanted Hezekiah to believe he got a 15 year life-extension, when god did not regard those last 15 years as a true extension.  In which case we have a god who gives a false impression to Hezekiah that his own death is imminent, when in fact god doesn't believe that to be the case.

Mike: but if god has exhaustive infallible foreknowledge, which you as a classical theist Catholic must believe, then god cannot change his mind for the simple reason change is not possible where the foreknowledge of the event is infallible.


Mike: Brent says his statement on god not needing to change the arrival date of Jesus, "in no way does that indicate that God never changes his mind."  Yes, Brent, under your carefully pruned quotation above, you didn't say anything that would foreclose the possibility of god changing his mind.  But if we read your statement in its context, we will find that you asserted something that, if true, would indeed foreclose the possibility of god changing his mind:


If the above-emphasized language is true, then it should apply to other acts of god in scripture, for example:  God who is all powerful and omnipotent, having known when (as in time wise by our standards) he by his own wisdom and reasoning and planning would set a date for Hezekiah's death, has no need to delay Hezekiah's death.

If god's planning forecloses his need to delay impregnating Mary, then why doesn't god's planning foreclose his need to delay the death of Hezekiah?  And yet in the bible we find god "adding" 15 years to Hezekiah's life, 2nd Kings 20:6.  If god infallibly foreknew Hezekiah would live out those last 15 years anyway, why is god pretending that those years were "added" when in god's mind they were always a part of Hezekiah's eternally decreed lifespan?


Mike:  If God foreknew he would change his mind, why does he pursue the original plan knowing it won't work?  What fool pursues the original plan when they have every reason to believe they will be changing their mind and deviate from it?  Is this the part where Brent hides away under the "god's ways are mysterious" trump card?


Mike: Brent appears desperate since his view of God as outside space and time, contradicts all the biblical descriptions of activity in heaven, which are portrayed as occurring in sequence no less than actions occur on earth.  For example:


In this depiction of god outside space and time, the conversation between god and lying spirit (lying spirits exist in heaven?  I guess we'll still be in the company of sin even in heaven?) is presented no differently than conversations that take place on earth.  Brent may say this appearance cannot be avoided due to limitations of human language on describing what heaven is really like.  I counter that Brent is wrong, and the bible presents temporal progression in heaven precisely because that is what the biblical author literally believed about heaven.  Brent will say this depiction of heaven is not literal, but unfortunately for him, there is no evidence in the grammar or context to suggest that the prophet giving this story intended to do anything other than provide a description of literal heavenly realties.  That being the case, Brent's sole motivate to interpret this less than literally arises from nothing but a concern to achieve harmony i the bible at any cost.