08 Dec 10
If god were a baseball player, it would be safe to say god would be the best baseball player, right? The question is could god the pitcher strike out god the batter? Conversely, could god the batter hit a home run off god the pitcher? No matter how you look at this riddle, god comes out less than omnipotent. In my view this riddle makes a case that there is no god.
08 Dec 10
4 edits
Originally posted by 667joeIt would only prove there is no god which satisfies the condition of being a perfect batter and a perfect pitcher in the sense that were he to assume both roles at the same time then one always has have to outperform the other, yet a perfect picher/batter will always triumph.
If god were a baseball player, it would be safe to say god would be the best baseball player, right? The question is could god the pitcher strike out god the batter? Conversely, could god the batter hit a home run off god the pitcher? No matter how you look at this riddle, god comes out less than omnipotent. In my view this riddle makes a case that there is no god.
If you limit "omnipotence" to mean can do all things which are logically possible or meaningful then your argument doesn't apply. Indeed it is not logically possible for a perfect pitcher to outperform a perfect batter (unless optimal batting has an inherent disadvantage built in to it with regards to optimal pitching perhaps (or vica-versa) - I know knothing about baseball).
10 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydThe assumption in 667joe's analogy is that this god, in it's dual manifestation as batter and pitcher would always play optimally well in both cases an so naive notion of "omnipotence" fails.
God (the batter) mwould hit the ball when God (the batter) CHOSE to do so. God (the pitcher) would K God (the batter) when God (the pitcher) chose to. No theological crisis here.
What you say here is a reformulation of the classic "rock god can't lift" defence where theists say God would simply choose not to lift the rock etc... None of the theist rebuttals I've heard so far actually address the problem(?) that it is supposed true a god has the potential to create a heavy rock for which the lifting of it exceeds it's capability. (the argument is that if it lacks such potential then it lacks omnipotence.)
As I said though if we limit "omnipotence" to refer to that which is logically possible, then the theist need not worry about the above paradox since it is meaningless.
10 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeTo repeat Agergs point in another way:
No matter how you look at this riddle, god comes out less than omnipotent.
Either omnipotence means being able to do only the logically possible, or being able to do the logically impossible.
If the former is the case, then your paradox goes away.
If the latter is the case, then God goes right ahead and does the logically impossible. Of course this would mean that logic is not a universal law and you are wasting your time putting up an argument in the first place.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Dec 10
Originally posted by 667joeI do not think that omnipotence, as normally understood in the Christian sense, entails the power to be both pitcher and batter simultaneously, as these two roles are mutually exclusive -- just to reaffirm what Agerg and twitehead have said.
If god were a baseball player, it would be safe to say god would be the best baseball player, right? The question is could god the pitcher strike out god the batter? Conversely, could god the batter hit a home run off god the pitcher? No matter how you look at this riddle, god comes out less than omnipotent. In my view this riddle makes a case that there is no god.
11 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeWrong ballpark. "God" aint going to "come down" and engagae in silly human logic.
If god were a baseball player, it would be safe to say god would be the best baseball player, right? The question is could god the pitcher strike out god the batter? Conversely, could god the batter hit a home run off god the pitcher? No matter how you look at this riddle, god comes out less than omnipotent. In my view this riddle makes a case that there is no god.
"He" is like a parent with outstretched arms waiting for us to get beyond our fear and reach back out to "Him".
We need to show the aliens that we are ready for them.
If we cant even get along wih our own neighbours, tolerate other religons, find other races "different" to us ,(despite the similarities), imagine how we would react if we saw a real alien?
Which brings me to one of my fave paradoxes,ie. that despite all of us being unique(even identical twins), we are all the same essentially. Most importantly we all have the bhuddaseed within us, which is the potential to unlock our minds and ascend back Home🙂
11 Dec 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelI am not convinced that logic is a product of humans. Logic, just is.
Wrong ballpark. "God" aint going to "come down" and engagae in silly human logic.
The basic question is: can illogical entities exist? And I think the answer is: without logic all talk is meaningless. We cannot talk of something existing or not unless we first assume that logic is universally valid.
11 Dec 10
Originally posted by 667joeI tell you what, take a pen and a piece of paper, draw me a square circle and I'll
If god were a baseball player, it would be safe to say god would be the best baseball player, right? The question is could god the pitcher strike out god the batter? Conversely, could god the batter hit a home run off god the pitcher? No matter how you look at this riddle, god comes out less than omnipotent. In my view this riddle makes a case that there is no god.
answer your question.
Kelly
11 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeYou've only shown (trivially) "God"s that have to satisfy the criteria you lay down are impossible; other gods, considered on an individual basis, may well just limp in as highly implausible* (but not impossible).
Just as a square circle is impossible, so is god!
*
Since no way to validly deduce any one of two gods (out of a potentially infinite number of them) is more plausible than the other.
11 Dec 10
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayHeh...if we define a circle as being an object for which all points that define it lay equidistant from some other point, it's centre (and relax the condition that this centre has to be coplanar with the other points defining the circle), define a square as usual then placing the centre of said square lying on the plane x,y=0 at a point on the z axis: lim_{z-> infinity}z (or just at a point infinity) then we do (I think!) get a square circle (albeit with infinite radius) 😵
Not sure why you think God is imposible, but I agree with you about the square
circle.
Kelly