Comments on: Theistic Critiques of Atheism, Part 3 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/01/05/theistic-critiques-of-atheism-part-3/ The theology of Reality Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:07:04 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Deacon Duncan http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/01/05/theistic-critiques-of-atheism-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-6526 Deacon Duncan Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:19:35 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=634#comment-6526 Trinitarian omnipotence is an odd duck in itself. Does one member of the Trinity have the power to do something that the other members of the Trinity try to prevent him from doing? If he does, then the other members are not omnipotent, since they were unable to prevent him. But if he does not, then he is not omnipotent, since he was unable to do it. Trinitarian omnipotence is an odd duck in itself. Does one member of the Trinity have the power to do something that the other members of the Trinity try to prevent him from doing? If he does, then the other members are not omnipotent, since they were unable to prevent him. But if he does not, then he is not omnipotent, since he was unable to do it.

]]> By: Brad http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/01/05/theistic-critiques-of-atheism-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-6499 Brad Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:35:21 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=634#comment-6499 Anselm's argument would make Alethea look good ... if the ontological argument wasn't utter nonsense. To me it's pretty obvious all religious conceptions of God don't have true omnipotence, but rather related anthropocentric intuitions about power and choice. If God truly was omnipotent, then he wouldn't have any sort of fixed nature at all (e.g. omnibenevolence, which restricts him to benevolent choices). What apologists are talking about is omni<i>power</i>: the 100% dependence of states of affairs on one's own will. Anselm’s argument would make Alethea look good … if the ontological argument wasn’t utter nonsense.

To me it’s pretty obvious all religious conceptions of God don’t have true omnipotence, but rather related anthropocentric intuitions about power and choice. If God truly was omnipotent, then he wouldn’t have any sort of fixed nature at all (e.g. omnibenevolence, which restricts him to benevolent choices). What apologists are talking about is omnipower: the 100% dependence of states of affairs on one’s own will.

]]> By: » Theistic Critiques of Atheism, Part 6 Evangelical Realism http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/01/05/theistic-critiques-of-atheism-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-6439 » Theistic Critiques of Atheism, Part 6 Evangelical Realism Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:13:21 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=634#comment-6439 [...] is the stone so heavy that God cannot lift it, morally speaking. As Dr. Craig has already discussed, this is an obvious impossibility, since it is a contradiction in terms: the definition of [...] [...] is the stone so heavy that God cannot lift it, morally speaking. As Dr. Craig has already discussed, this is an obvious impossibility, since it is a contradiction in terms: the definition of [...]

]]> By: » Theistic critiques of atheism, part 4 Evangelical Realism http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/01/05/theistic-critiques-of-atheism-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-6412 » Theistic critiques of atheism, part 4 Evangelical Realism Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:29:47 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=634#comment-6412 [...] Theistic Critiques of Atheism, Part 3 [...] [...] Theistic Critiques of Atheism, Part 3 [...]

]]> By: jim http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/01/05/theistic-critiques-of-atheism-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-6389 jim Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:26:43 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=634#comment-6389 It's nice to see you tackling Craig, as he's arguably in the upper echelon of Christian philosopher/apologists. You've vigorously shown his arguments to be just as weak as any other apologist's, albeit a bit more convoluted. It’s nice to see you tackling Craig, as he’s arguably in the upper echelon of Christian philosopher/apologists. You’ve vigorously shown his arguments to be just as weak as any other apologist’s, albeit a bit more convoluted.

]]> By: Kenneth http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/01/05/theistic-critiques-of-atheism-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-6382 Kenneth Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:18:54 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=634#comment-6382 A scientific tsunami is headed Dr. Craig's way. It's coming out of neuroscience and is demolishing classic definitions of free agency. Evolution removed biology from the Aristotilian model of ideal catagories and placed it firmly in a complexity of interdependent actions. Today one of the great frontiers of that on-going process is the demythologization of cognition. Sorry. No more idealistic empowerement catagories to move around on our Speculation Board any more. It's not surprising that defenders of 3000 year old theories are getting it wrong. A scientific tsunami is headed Dr. Craig’s way. It’s coming out of neuroscience and is demolishing classic definitions of free agency. Evolution removed biology from the Aristotilian model of ideal catagories and placed it firmly in a complexity of interdependent actions. Today one of the great frontiers of that on-going process is the demythologization of cognition.

Sorry. No more idealistic empowerement catagories to move around on our Speculation Board any more. It’s not surprising that defenders of 3000 year old theories are getting it wrong.

]]>