1. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    111276
    08 Dec '10 16:42
    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.
  2. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    08 Dec '10 16:46
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
  3. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    08 Dec '10 16:574 edits
    Originally posted by 667joe
    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.
    It 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 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).
  4. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8071
    10 Dec '10 17:09
    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.
  5. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    10 Dec '10 18:031 edit
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    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.
    The 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.

    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.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Dec '10 20:181 edit
    Originally posted by 667joe
    No matter how you look at this riddle, god comes out less than omnipotent.
    To repeat Agergs point in another way:
    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.
  7. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    11 Dec '10 06:07
    Originally posted by 667joe
    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.
    I 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.
  8. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91855
    11 Dec '10 07:161 edit
    Originally posted by 667joe
    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.
    Wrong ballpark. "God" aint going to "come down" and engagae in silly human logic.
    "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🙂
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Dec '10 11:55
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    Wrong ballpark. "God" aint going to "come down" and engagae in silly human logic.
    I am not convinced that logic is a product of humans. Logic, just is.

    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.
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148543
    11 Dec '10 19:06
    Originally posted by 667joe
    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.
    I tell you what, take a pen and a piece of paper, draw me a square circle and I'll
    answer your question.
    Kelly
  11. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    111276
    11 Dec '10 19:28
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I tell you what, take a pen and a piece of paper, draw me a square circle and I'll
    answer your question.
    Kelly
    Just as a square circle is impossible, so is god!
  12. Joined
    29 Oct '10
    Moves
    1256
    11 Dec '10 19:55
    Originally posted by 667joe
    Just as a square circle is impossible, so is god!
    well thats a flaw in your logic

    just because one thing is imppossible doesnt mean another thing is
  13. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    11 Dec '10 19:591 edit
    Originally posted by 667joe
    Just as a square circle is impossible, so is god!
    You'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).




    *Reveal Hidden Content
    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.
  14. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148543
    11 Dec '10 20:53
    Originally posted by 667joe
    Just as a square circle is impossible, so is god!
    Not sure why you think God is imposible, but I agree with you about the square
    circle.
    Kelly
  15. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    11 Dec '10 21:003 edits
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Not sure why you think God is imposible, but I agree with you about the square
    circle.
    Kelly
    Heh...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) 😵
Back to Top