Can your god lie?

Originally posted by Agerg
One feature that is not conserved with your ploughing a field analogy when considering the question "Can your god lie" is it's universality. By that I mean that [b]presently you lack access to facilities to perform such ploughing, but next year may be different. As such you've only identified a small subset of all the possible situations you will be in whi s before; I don\'t see the need for excessive pedantry yet though.[/hidden][/b]

I don't think it has anything to do with time at all. It might turn out that I never meet the right circumstances in which I will plough. I can still say however that I can plough,just only in the limited sense that I have the power, the ability, to do so. For another example, if someone says that they can touch their toes, it does not mean that they ever will. They are not claiming that in the future they may ever have the intention of touching their toes. Imagine they were asked by their doctor whether they could touch their toes. The doctor is not interested in whether they will touch their toes; they are simply interested in whether the patient has health hangstring and lowerback flexibility.

I think it is universally accepted that the modal verb 'can' has a number of meanings. I have suggested two, another would be the permissive 'can' (as in 'can I go to the bathroom?' which functionally is a request for permission, not a question of whether he has the ability to urinate or whether the toilets are usable). As English speakers, we have to be sensitive to this ambiguity. Imagine someone says 'I can stand up'. Depending on context, this could have multiple readings: 1) I am allowed to stand up (say, in a military drill.); 2. I might or I have the chance to stand up; or 3, I have it in my power to stand up. I don't see why the third reading entails that the person ever actually will stand up. I can become the Prime Minister of Australia -- I am an Australian citizen, am over 18 and hold no criminal record. That said, I will not become Prime Minister of Australia because I have no such inclination.

The point is that 'can' has different contruals and you cannot stipulate what the theist means. Even if you find the exact definition unconventional, it is not after all your belief. It is the theist's belief and it is the theist's right to define the terms of his belief. It is just silly to try to bring God's omnipotence to a reductio ad absurdum by insisting on a definition of omnipotence that does not correspond to the theist's. If the theist prefers the dynamic interpretation, that is their call.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't think it has anything to do with time at all. It might turn out that I never meet the right circumstances in which I will plough. I can still say however that I can plough,just only in the limited sense that I have the power, the ability, to do so. For another example, if someone says that they can touch their toes, it does not mean that they ever theist's. If the theist prefers the dynamic interpretation, that is their call.

I agree it has nothing to do with time or temporality and hence my hidden disclaimer; it does have a lot to do with the set of all things one is capable of doing (for whatever reason) for any moment of interest to us though (and it's tricky trying to articulate an argument such as this in english without even some weak reference to time).
The point I was making is that for god, this set of things it can do, or is willing to do, or has the facilities to do, etc... is the universal set whilst for the plougher it is only a small subset of some universal set. Indeed even if till the day you die, you will never find a good location to plough; in principle it is theoretically possible that you might. With God no such space is left for its potential to lie.

The argument that god fails to be omnipotent if it cannot lie is not my own, I merely disagree that the analogy you provide is sufficient to capture all the important details of the original question. Moreover the devil, as they say, is in the details.

Originally posted by Agerg
One feature that is not conserved with your ploughing a field analogy when considering the question "Can your god lie" is it's universality. By that I mean that [b]presently you lack access to facilities to perform such ploughing, but next year may be different. As such you've only identified a small subset of all the possible situations you will be in whi ...[text shortened]... s before; I don\'t see the need for excessive pedantry yet though.[/hidden][/b]

I think the Holy Bible says something like...God is not a man that He should
lie. I believe this means God will not lie. So in effect, to us, it would mean
He can not lie.

Originally posted by Agerg
I agree it has nothing to do with time or temporality and hence my hidden disclaimer; it does have a lot to do with the set of all things one is capable of doing (for whatever reason) for any moment of interest to us though (and it's tricky trying to articulate an argument such as this in english without even some weak reference to time).
The point I was mak ...[text shortened]... important details of the original question. Moreover the devil, as they say, is in the details.

Well, first of all, I don't think it has anything to do with modality or potentiality or sets of worlds or anything like that. It could turn out that I live on a country permanently devoid of any arable land and which is inescapable -- people may only enter but never leave. Now a scientist may wonder whether over the course of years the inhabitants of this land still have the power to plough, to which I might reply 'I can plough' even though no such possibility of ploighing could present itself.

Second, if you are going to insist that 'can' basically requires a 'subset from a universal set', then the theist already has an answer. The traditional answer is just to say that God can lie, just for that world in which God does lie, He just does not have a honest nature. The theist can frame it like this 'God can lie, provided that such a lying God would be of different nature'. I addressed this in a post above.

Third, again, it's not your place to define what these terms means. You are an atheist. You remind me of the pedantic teacher refusing to let a pupil go to the bathroom because he had asked 'can I go to the toilet?' rather than 'may I go to the toilet'. If the theist means that God has omnipotence in the restrictive sense that such an act is within his power, then you have to respect that. Stipulating that 'can' requires some subset of worlds may capture the ordinary usage but it won't work for the theist who is deploying a different definition.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, first of all, I don't think it has anything to do with modality or potentiality or sets of worlds or anything like that. It could turn out that I live on a country permanently devoid of any arable land and which is inescapable -- people may only enter but never leave. Now a scientist may wonder whether over the course of years the inhabitants of this usage but it won't work for the theist who is deploying a different definition.

Well, first of all, I don't think it has anything to do with modality or potentiality or sets of worlds or anything like that. It could turn out that I live on a country permanently devoid of any arable land and which is inescapable -- people may only enter but never leave. Now a scientist may wonder whether over the course of years the inhabitants of this land still have the power to plough, to which I might reply 'I can plough' even though no such possibility of ploighing could present itself.
In this case there would be a real and unbreachable impediment to your ploughing such that for all intents and purposes you cannot plough. Or if you can plough, then you can plough just as much as my dog can speak german (if it had the correct anatomy and a desire to learn the language), i.e. cheapening what it means to say "one can"

Second, if you are going to insist that 'can' basically requires a 'subset from a universal set', then the theist already has an answer. The traditional answer is just to say that God can lie, just for that world in which God does lie, He just does not have a honest nature. The theist can frame it like this 'God can lie, provided that such a lying God would be of different nature'. I addressed this in a post above.
But they would be referencing a different god in this case; a god that is not the one they suppose is actual. Moreover they would inevitably conflate two different entities with this line of argument.

Third, again, it's not your place to define what these terms means. You are an atheist. You remind me of the pedantic teacher refusing to let a pupil go to the bathroom because he had asked 'can I go to the toilet?' rather than 'may I go to the toilet'. If the theist means that God has omnipotence in the restrictive sense that such an act is within his power, then you have to respect that. Stipulating that 'can' requires some subset of worlds may capture the ordinary usage but it won't work for the theist who is deploying a different definition.
So you're saying that if a theist(s) comes along and tells me God X as described by a holy book they didn't write exists, I should just accept whatever definitions about this God they care to disingenuously adopt for the sake of arguments they have with me or other skeptics??

In this discussion you attempt to formulate some argument whereby a theist can have a god that cannot lie in the sense we reasonably interpret that statement, yet assert it can lie in some meaningless/vacuous fashion if a non lying god presents a problem to him. If we're just discussing some abstract god, un-anchored to any dogma or religion I'm all ears. Otherwise supposing we're talking about some specific God which for most Christians has attributes that can only be (and in general are by them) interpreted (reasonably) in one fashion, then I will apply conventional definitions.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Well, first of all, I don't think it has anything to do with modality or potentiality or sets of worlds or anything like that. It could turn out that I live on a country permanently devoid of any arable land and which is inescapable -- people may only enter but never leave. Now a scientist may wonder whether over the course of years the inhabitants of this (reasonably) in one fashion, then I will apply conventional definitions.[/b]

Am I to understand that you consider the word 'can' to be purely univocal? You do not allow that some speakers in different contexts may intend different meanings?

Otherwise supposing we're talking about some specific God which for most Christians has attributes that can only be (and in general are by them) interpreted (reasonably) in one fashion, then I will apply conventional definitions.

Well, that's just puerile. Imagine you were accosted by a Trinitarian Christian stating that God is three persons in one nature. Now your approach would seems to be, 'well, hey, conventionally, a person is defined as a sentient being, with his own mind, will and feelings. So you really believe in three Gods, don't you?' There may be a legitimate objection to Trinitarian theology but deliberately misunderstanding your opponent by redefining terms in your own fashion is not a good method of argument.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Am I to understand that you consider the word 'can' to be purely univocal? You do not allow that some speakers in different contexts may intend different meanings?

No you are incorrect to understand that. Yes, phrases are often equipped with context, the composition of the words and context leans towards one definition. The stranger who smiles and nods his head when asked "can you tell me the time?" is taking the p***. Similarly the theist who says "God can lie" means it can lie if it was different version of God in some other mode of existence is playing with sophistries.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Am I to understand that you consider the word 'can' to be purely univocal? You do not allow that some speakers in different contexts may intend different meanings?

[b]Otherwise supposing we're talking about some specific God which for most Christians has attributes that can only be (and in general are by them) interpreted (reasonably) in one fashion, the g your opponent by redefining terms in your own fashion is not a good method of argument.]/b

You're bringing this argument down into the mud Conrau K; that's a (deliberately) lousy interpretation of what I meant.

Discussion over.

Originally posted by Agerg
No you are incorrect to understand that. Yes, phrases are often equipped with context, the composition of the words and context leans towards one definition. The stranger who smiles and nods his head when asked "can you tell me the time?" is taking the p***. Similarly the theist who says "God can lie" means it can lie if it was different version of God in some other mode of existence is playing with sophistries.

My question was not whether language is multivalent. Obviously the meaning of a sentence depends largely on its context. Depending on the situation, it is possible for a sentence to actually mean the opposite of its literal meaning. My question here however was specifically regarding the word 'can'. Do you believe this word to be univocal?

And it is not altogether clear what the theist might mean at all. When I asked Epi about this particular problem, he completely rejected my solution that God can refuse to save mankind, provided God was different in some quality. I think the solution I have offered in this thread more closely resembles what a Christian theist means i.e. God can lie in the sense that it is within his power (he has the faculty of speech and the knowledge of what is true and false, ergo the requisite conditions of lying). Basically, you are refusing to understand what the theist means. The conversations runs like this:

Theist: God can do anything.
Atheist: So God can steal, cheat, kill babies.
Theist: Well, yes.
Atheist: AHA! So God has a pernicious nature. He really could do all manner of evil things.
Theist: Well, he can but he never would. It is just not in his nature.
Atheist: Well, see definition 1b of the OED for the word 'can'. You are now committed to the statement that it is possible that God will steal, cheat and kill babies.
Theist: Hang on, I didn't mean to say anything of the kind. By 'can', I just meant that he has such power.
Atheist: So he can't lie?

And on it goes.

I don't see how the theist is using the word 'can' in an extraordinary sense, and even if he were, I don't see how that matters since it is after all his right to define the words he uses.

Originally posted by Conrau K
My question was not whether language is multivalent. Obviously the meaning of a sentence depends largely on its context. Depending on the situation, it is possible for a sentence to actually mean the opposite of its literal meaning. My question here however was specifically regarding the word 'can'. Do you believe this word to be univocal?

't see how that matters since it is after all his right to define the words he uses.

My question was not whether language is multivalent. Obviously the meaning of a sentence depends largely on its context. Depending on the situation, it is possible for a sentence to actually mean the opposite of its literal meaning. My question here however was specifically regarding the word 'can'. Do you believe this word to be univocal?
No I don't believe it is univocal, why would I??? but the word "can", unless it is meant as a container (like can of coke) in some sort of pointing game, is often accompanied with other words, these words supplying context, and a referent(s).

And it is not altogether clear what the theist might mean at all. When I asked Epi about this particular problem, he completely rejected my solution that God can refuse to save mankind, provided God was different in some quality. I think the solution I have offered in this thread more closely resembles what a Christian theist means i.e. God can lie in the sense that it is within his power (he has the faculty of speech and the knowledge of what is true and false, ergo the requisite conditions of lying). Basically, you are refusing to understand what the theist means. The conversations runs like this:

Theist: God can do anything.
Atheist: So God can steal, cheat, kill babies.
Theist: Well, yes.
Atheist: AHA! So God has a pernicious nature. He really could do all manner of evil things.
Theist: Well, he can but he never would. It is just not in his nature.
Atheist: Well, see definition 1b of the OED for the word 'can'. You are now committed to the statement that it is possible that God will steal, cheat and kill babies.
Theist: Hang on, I didn't mean to say anything of the kind. By 'can', I just meant that he has such power.
Atheist: So he can't lie?
This toy conversation of yours has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I'm contesting. The can in "God can lie" refers to one specific version of God that is supposd might or does exist. The statement declares what this God is capable of doing. You are trying to argue the theist might want it to refer to some other worldly version of God, a god that isn't supposed to exist (and importantly never has or never will be supposed exists). You're trying to bully this sleight of hand through by belittling my intelligence if I don't agree.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]My question was not whether language is multivalent. Obviously the meaning of a sentence depends largely on its context. Depending on the situation, it is possible for a sentence to actually mean the opposite of its literal meaning. My question here however was specifically regarding the word 'can'. Do you believe this word to be univocal? [/b ...[text shortened]... ly this sleight of hand through by belittling my intelligence if I don't agree.

God can not lie because of his character not because of a lack of power.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]My question was not whether language is multivalent. Obviously the meaning of a sentence depends largely on its context. Depending on the situation, it is possible for a sentence to actually mean the opposite of its literal meaning. My question here however was specifically regarding the word 'can'. Do you believe this word to be univocal? [/b ly this sleight of hand through by belittling my intelligence if I don't agree.[/b]

No I don't believe it is univocal, why would I??? but the word "can", unless it is meant as a container (like can of coke) in some sort of pointing game, is often accompanied with other words, these words supplying context, and a referent(s).

Ok. So what is the problem? Why can't the theist just say that by 'can' he means 'has the power to'? I checked the OED, this is a standard definition of the word 'can'.

This toy conversation of yours has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I'm contesting. The can in "God can lie" refers to one specific version of God that is supposd might or does exist.

Yeah, sure.

The statement declares what this God is capable of doing.

Yes.

You are trying to argue the theist might want it to refer to some other worldly version of God, a god that isn't supposed to exist (and importantly never has or never will be supposed exists). You're trying to bully this sleight of hand through by belittling my intelligence if I don't agree.

No. I suggested this only as a solution for the theist if he wants to interpret 'can' as 'it is possible that'. If so, for God to be able to lie, God would have to be of a different nature (i.e. a dishonest one.) I am not interested on this point -- I already pointed out the problem some time ago (in fact, I did so in my second post in this thread.) This however has not been the main point of my posts.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]No I don't believe it is univocal, why would I??? but the word "can", unless it is meant as a container (like can of coke) in some sort of pointing game, is often accompanied with other words, these words supplying context, and a referent(s).

Ok. So what is the problem? Why can't the theist just say that by 'can' he means 'has the power to'? I che post in this thread.) This however has not been the main point of my posts.[/b]

My problem is the object you propose the theist should reference in "God can lie" is not the God they believe exists. Much theist illogic is built upon equivocating terms and conflating ideas. You are promoting this way of debating here.

My entry into this thread was an objection to your incomplete analogy seeking to legitimise the melding of two different and contrasting notions of God as and when the theist sees fit. I highlighted where it breaks down and your responses where little more than of the form *I don't get to stipulate what a theist means!* Well I'm sorry but the theist doesn't get a free pass from me when it comes to blatant dishonesty.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If not then he is not omnipotent.

If so is there proof?

FAIL!

You are under the false assumption that lying is superior to truth and therefore more potent than the truth. The truth is always superior to falshood and thusly God being the Spirit of Truth in no way inhibits his perfection or power.

If not then he is not omnipotent.

If so is there proof?

FAIL!

You are under the false assumption that lying is superior to truth and therefore more potent than the truth. The truth is always superior to falshood and thusly God being the Spirit of Truth in no way inhibits his perfection or power.
You misunderstand. wolfgang59 is asking if your god has the capacity to lieReveal Hidden Contenthe's not assigning any moral value to the action, merely questioning whether your god has the capacity to deliver information it believes to be false.

If it lacks the capacity to lie then there exists at least one thing out of the set of all things which are logically possible to do that your god cannot do. This means it cannot do EVERYTHING (that is logically permissible).

Thus it is not omnipotent.