Psychologist

Ah, the classic argument against Theism is a classic example of a type of flawed attempt at critical reasoning.

In the first place, God is God. He is omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, then he is not God.

To be discredit the argument “God created the world and no one/thing created God because he is the starting point” properly means you HAVE to understand one thing first- that God is omnipotent.

If you counter that argument by asking who created God, that shows you do not understand the implications of “omnipotence”, which makes your counter argument as null as a red herring.

It’s like saying,

If John kissed Jane, does Jane exist?

No balls are caught! If you want to discredit an argument, you have to understand the source of the argument (i.e. its implied meaning/premise) and attack that.

This means attacking the concept of omnipotence, not throwing a question that is not applicable back to a question!

What kind of logic is that?

So anyway, if you want to logically think about it, you CANNOT counter that argument that God exists precisely because of the existence of the very-hard-to-disprove point of God’s omnipotence.

How are you going to disprove omnipotence? Asking me to prove omnipotence? I can’t do that.

If you are going to use the argument:

“If God created an unmovable rock, and if God is omnipotent, can he move that rock?”

Then I will say that it is a paradox and an impossibility because you have limited God’s omnipotence (by questioning his capability of doing everything including the impossible).

The reasoning goes this way:

1) If God is omnipotent, he can do anything.
2) If he can do anything, he can create a rock which he cannot lift
3) If he cannot lift that rock which he created, then he cannot do anything and he is not omnipotent
4) If he can lift that rock which he created, then he has not created a rock that he cannot lift
5) If he cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent

The catch in this reasoning is at point #2. This sort of reasoning is aimed to show impossibility by providing impossibility in the existence of rock-which-cannot-be-lifted-by-him itself.

If he is omnipotent, he can do anything, but how can he make something he cannot do?

But essentially, this is a very vague argument because it blurs the line between the real premise that needs to be clarified against the pseudo arguments.

If we have arrived at a logical paradox, we are only left to analyse its soundness.

Consider premise 1: If God is omnipotent, he can do anything.

What is “anything”?

Is this “anything” simply –anything- that consists of everything and nothing or is this “anything” something that can be done or has a slight chance of being done?

If we were to argue from a logical, wordly point of view, then it would be the latter, because if we want to argue the merits of the plausibility of a situation, we have to work with something that can be used, that means to say, something that is a possibility instead of an impossibility.

Agree?

So how can one say that something cannot be omnipotent when that something cannot create that which is not creatable?

I’ll leave you to ponder about that.

BUT ANYWAY, it all boils down to godamned belief (pun unintended)!

The basis of acceptance of God (or, as some would put it- The concept of A God) is the acceptance of the concept of omnipotence.

Which IMO, is beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals BECAUSE our ability of reasoning is only limited by what we can experience and draw conclusion from in this EARTH (our A priori and A posteriori knowledge).

In short, God is beyond our comprehension.

Another argument point from a Theist’s POV:

How can you argue, or, seek to disprove, or, question against something that is beyond your comprehension?

A famous philosophy maxim that comes to mind is this:

We have the known knowns, the unknown knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.

God/His power/HIM/Pink apples lies in the lattermost category.

So why bother disproving? It’s really up to you whether you want to believe or not.

For those who WANT to believe, the signs are there, the words are there. If you feel they are not satisfactory, then so be it. Not my problem. It’s *your* prerogative.

So why is it people enjoy arguing about subjective issues?