AJJ

No, I’m just here to pronounce @"DA671" the winner of the argument.

I’m not particularly interested in the topic, but I think this is a good inconsistency to have found.

And we’re done. Good talk.

One more.

I’ll give you two more goes.

Arguments work by identifying inconsistencies and entailments that cast doubt on a belief. If you’d like to continue arguing, think of a pertinent que...

To put it more concisely, God is omnipotent because all powers that exist come from God. That’s my view. To argue with it you need to ask pertinent qu...

Arguments work by identifying inconsistencies and entailments that cast doubt on a belief. God is necessarily, I’ll say instead, omnipotent. To stop b...

A bachelor can’t be married because that contradicts the definition of a bachelor. God can’t not be omnipotent because that contradicts the definition...

He’s essentially those traits. A bachelor is essentially unmarried, so he can’t be married. God is essentially omnipotent, so he can’t not be omnipote...

2 Divesting himself of his divine traits would be a contradiction on my terms, so it isn’t a limitation that he can’t.

Arguments work by finding inconsistencies and entailments that cast doubt on a belief. Your replies don’t address what I’ve said, so I’m counting that...

I’ve said that God as God in essentially omnipotent. For the sake of argument I’ve accepted that the person of God is not essentially omnipotent. A ba...

Mate, I have. I’m actually a little distressed by how blind you are to it.

What I’ve just said accepts what you’ve been saying, and points out that what you’ve been saying entails a peculiar and contentious concept of God.

It isn’t at all. Really, it isn’t.

You’ve not tracked the argument. The problem is your view of omnipotence rests on a peculiar and contentious concept of God, where he’s a person whose...

You said earlier that God stops being God once he ceases his omnipotence. Do you still agree with this?

This doesn’t address what I said.

A bachelor is essentially unmarried. He can get married because his manhood takes priority over his bachelorhood. God is essentially omnipotent. So if...

Do you believe that God’s personhood takes priority over his divinity?

And your argument doesn’t work either way. God’s omnipotence is essential to him. Bachelorhood is not essential to a man. A man can get married and re...

We’re talking about the concept of God. We can’t be talking about his instantiation, because we’ve both offered different views about what that would ...

We’re talking about the concept of God. According to your concept of him he can potentially not be omnipotent. This is inconsistent with your affirmat...

In the context of this discussion he’s certainly a concept.

God is a concept, so you’re making a category error when you compare him to an instance of another concept rather than the concept itself.

A bachelor (as opposed to a particular man who is a bachelor) does not have the potential to be married, because a bachelor can’t be married. God does...

Do you agree that what he say here then is inconsistent? God isn’t potentially not omnipotent if under that circumstance he stops being God.

If you say he stops being God once he creates the stone he cannot lift then you’ve effectively claimed that God can’t not be omnipotent (because in th...

Would you say that once he creates the stone he cannot lift then he stops being God?

God is omnipotent, but there are potential things that he cannot do (like lifting a certain stone). The above statement is incongruous but it’s implic...

It’s the being unable to lift the stone that affects the claim of his omnipotence. Unless no such power to lift the stone exists, in which case he isn...

The two examples aren’t analogous. The possibility of marriage doesn’t affect the man’s bachelorhood, whereas the possibility of being unable to lift ...

“Haha! No spitting in public! That’s all we did to you, honest!”

There still seems to be an issue in that you can say of God before he creates the stone that there are potential stones that he can’t lift - there’s a...

It represents a forfeit.

The laughing emoticon represents a forfeit. GG.

It’s rhetoric, or else he wouldn’t bother applying it in principle to the universe.

Plus, in the other quote Kant acknowledges the conception to be a logical possibility.

He’s rejecting its demonstrability. The concept remains intact, since he applies it in principle to the universe.

They don’t repudiate the concept. Read the quotes I provided.

Hume has this to say: Both Kant and Hume are in agreement with what I’ve said: necessity can be asserted about things; the assertion may not be right,...

Temporality and causality... interaction. Transcendence: you can’t find God as an object in the world. Immanence: he’s that which gives everything its...

Please actually, if you’re willing.

You mentioned temporality in respect to interaction. It wasn’t hand-waving; the concepts are clear. Necessary means can’t not exist. It doesn’t follow...

You didn’t mention any other issues, just the one about interaction. “It is in the nature of a triangle to have 3 sides. Given that a triangle exists,...

You didn’t mention any other issues. Necessity is something you can assert about things. To say something is necessary is just to say it can’t not exi...

The Christian story and other accounts of gods becoming human draw some of their relevance from this. It’s fair to think that God would be impersonal ...

The idea is that he’s transcendent and immanent, as in beyond any instance of a particular thing, while being that which gives everything its being; i...

If you like Edward Feser he has a blog post about this: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/04/craig-on-divine-simplicity-and-theistic.html?m=1 As I ...