Timeline for Evil God Challenge: What if an evil god is just trolling humanity and that explains why there's good in the world?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 days ago | comment | added | Ham Sandwich | Per the wiki, constructor theory has to do with new physical laws being created, not the metaphysical laws of logic being violated. | |
| Jul 4 at 9:28 | comment | added | Andy | "Descartes says that the only thing we can know undeniably is the Cogito." and even that I'm not sure about... | |
| Jul 3 at 16:25 | comment | added | Idran | @Corbin Their argument against your position is that their answer doesn't mention omnipotence, nor does it refer specifically to the Abrahamic God. They aren't saying your position is in bad faith, but that your comment was made in bad faith because it's irrelevant to their answer. Their answer is about a hypothetical creator deity that may not necessarily be omnipotent, and so the logical impossibility of omnipotence doesn't provide a universal way of refuting all such hypothetical deities. | |
| Jul 3 at 12:56 | comment | added | Corbin | @DKing: If the strongest argument you have against my position is that it is "bad faith" then you are tacitly admitting all of my deductions. At any rate, I'm merely explaining my downvote; your approach is decent but stumbles by giving God too much benefit of doubt. God is a self-defeating object, logically. | |
| Jul 3 at 12:53 | comment | added | Corbin | @HamSandwich: This is a common mistake which reduces God to the power level of humans. After all, via constructor theory, if we are limited to the constructible parts of physical reality then any construction can be performed by anybody and God trivializes. So no, you probably don't want to take that path. | |
| Jul 2 at 23:27 | comment | added | DKing | @Corbin I want to point out to any readers here the level of bad faith made in your comment. As Idran aptly observed, nothing in the OP nor this answer relate to omnipotence. (I never argue for omnipotence so defined) Nevertheless, you linked to an answer you gave on a question you asked, one which was closed because it was a poor duplicate of a highly ranked one where the answer is contrary. Furthermore, the answer you gave was the most downvoted and seemingly worst, yet you approved it as your own answer. I know that my comment here is off-topic, but I encourage others to check it out. | |
| Jul 2 at 23:24 | comment | added | Ham Sandwich | Logical inconsistencies do not refute the possibility of omnipotence, of course. Such situations are not "things" but rather nonsense. God's inability to create logically impossible scenarios doesn't show Him to be less than omnipotent. | |
| Jul 2 at 21:20 | comment | added | Idran | @Corbin Neither the OP nor this answer assumes this hypothetical evil creator god is omnipotent; the closest was the OP referring to a counterargument that proceeded from that premise among other counterarguments that didn't. There's no necessity for a hypothetical creator god to be omnipotent; take Odin, for example, or Izanagi and Izanami, or Atum, or Mbombo. | |
| Jul 2 at 17:22 | comment | added | Corbin | Pure reason is sufficient to refute omnipotence; see this answer and comments. | |
| Jul 2 at 13:54 | history | answered | DKing | CC BY-SA 4.0 |