<< One More Thing | Home | Comment problems continue >>

Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

First rule of convincing your marks rubes customers congregation that you know what you're talking about: Don't make claims that are obviously and patently impossible



OK, now I'm pretty sure I've dealt with this before. The definition of omnipotent, as Brian has rather redundantly, but helpfully, mentioned, is that your magic god thing can do ANYTHING, no matter what.

So, as a wise man once said: Can this god create an object so heavy he himself cannot lift it?

Tip: I can do that. Another one I like is "Can god make a cup of coffee so hot that he himself can't drink it". *

Now for the second claim, which I've definitely dealt with previously. Omniscience.

Omniscience implies knowing everything. Literally everything. Most christians who've never thought about this in any depth take this to mean that god knows everything, past, present and future. Brian seems to be echoing this.

So god knows what you're going to do. So you basically have no choice in your own actions - you can't second guess a 3O god. So no free will. No free will means no sin, because you have no choice whatsoever in the matter. No sin means the crucifiction and resurrection were pointless, since god was sacrificing himself to himself (pointlessly) for something you (the christian) had no choice in.

And there the whole of christianity falls to pieces. Again.

Thanks Brian! You've demonstrated your own gaping ignorance, and your religion's pointless, paradoxical, foundations. I hardly had to do anything at all. Excellent

*someone schooled in physics may have problems with this one - the pressure required to keep water liquid above 100oC increases mathematically and it all gets rather pedantic. Still, I like it.

posted @ Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:39 AM

 
 
 

Comments on this entry:

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by luke at 11/30/2010 12:22 PM
Gravatar
can god switch off his omniscience?.. does god have the power to change his mind?

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Dave The Happy Singer at 11/30/2010 12:33 PM
Gravatar
O RLY Brian?

'And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.'

-- Exodus 32:14

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Dan at 11/30/2010 1:20 PM
Gravatar
Hey there. I like playing Christian advocate so here goes. What does 'knowing' everything have to do with free will? Lets say i know that you are going to trip over a root in a few seconds. Whether i tell you or not is irrelevant to my knowing you will fall. And for you the fact that i know you will fall has no bearing on your experience of falling or not falling because you cannot read my mind. For all practical intent your fall was your experience to have. For there to be no free will you would have to know the outcome yourself, which you didnt.

I just wonder whether knowledge and application can be taken into account here. God is capable of creating a stone too large to life but that capability is not actually applied.

Just some ideas that i hope someone could enlighten me on where i may have gone astray. Ta

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Davo at 11/30/2010 2:17 PM
Gravatar
The problem with omniscience is that knowledge comes in many forms, one of them being experiential knowledge. This is overlooked a lot in the concept of knowing everything ... some knowledge you can only gain from having had the experience.

Can an omniscient being have the experiential knowledge of not being able to ever be omniscient?

What about the experiential knowledge of pure unadulterated malice, say the knowledge of exactly what it was to be Hitler?

What about the experiental knowledge of being absolutely powerless with no way back?

What about the experiential knowledge of a friend who is your equal?

Combining the two 'powers' we get another issue :

1/ An omniscient being knows all future and past facts, including all possibilities and experiences any of those possibilities could have.

2/ This means these facts are unchangable as the omniscient being already knows that they would change it and to what, there is no way these facts were not known.

3/ The result is the existence of this being would be immutable, unchangable. This being would be powerless to change the future as it already knows what it would change it too, it knows EVERYTHING.

4/ The only way it could change the immutable knowledge it has of the future would to not be omniscient.

5/ But not being able to change the future, would mean that this being was not omnipotent.

So Dan, in your case, has this god the experiential knowledge of creating a rock so heavy that it could _never_ lift it?

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Jonathan Elliot at 11/30/2010 5:29 PM
Gravatar
I'm surprised that the "can god make a rock he can't lift" argument is still going around. ie Can God do logical impossibilities?

Most christians I know of would say that "God can do anything that is possible." Logical impossibilities don't count, so this kind of approach comes across as merely playing with words. I think this argument should be quietly retired.

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Jason at 11/30/2010 5:54 PM
Gravatar
@Jonathan

I'm more surprised that the premise "god is omnipotent" is still around.

If you claim a 3O god, then play the "ah, but..." game, you're guilty of a colossal special plead.

The problem here is not that some people's favourite god concepts do or do not conform to solid logical concepts, it's that Brian Fucking Houston (that's his real middle name) is still playing at baby-talk christianity

If your god is only capable of logical possiblities, fine. I'll argue against that later. But that concept is not Omnipotent. Omnipotent is impossible.

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Jason at 11/30/2010 6:08 PM
Gravatar
@Dan

"What does 'knowing' everything have to do with free will?"

It's the knowledge of the future aspect that's the problem. It implies that your future is already known to magic man, therefore fixed. Therefore the only choice you have is merely illusory.

Basically, you're a pre-programmed robot that thinks it has autonomy. Actually a fairly sick premise.

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by David Ould at 11/30/2010 9:08 PM
Gravatar
having a 3rd attempt at getting a comment to go through.

The 3-O God, as you put it, is not a Biblical concept in the terms that you describe Houston as stating it. It's got a lot more to do with Aristotle than anything in the Bible itself.
Rather, Christian theologians have regularly affirmed that the God of the Bible is not simply a philosophical construct but, rather, reveals Himself in His own terms. Applying Aristotlean categories is a, well, category error.

Having said that, you are surely aware that there are entirely reasonable Christian responses to these issues. Aquinas' Summa, although in debt itself to Aristotle, discusses these kinds of issues at length. The Reformers and their descendants also addressed the issue of providence and agency.

I think you're a little optimistic to think you've somehow destroyed 2,000 years of Christian thinking in a short blog post.

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Jason at 11/30/2010 10:41 PM
Gravatar
"the God of the Bible is not simply a philosophical construct but, rather, reveals Himself in His own terms."

I'll see your category error and raise you a special pleading.

I also fail to see how that addresses the issue at hand. My point is "Brian Houston's description of his god is logically and philosophically impossible". You reply with, what, "god only lets us know what he wants us to know"?

David, I don't have to destroy 2000 years of christian thought in a single blog post. Christians do it for me, by spending 2000 years fluffing about and still not actually getting the point that there's no evidence whatsoever and all they're doing is discussing the plausibility of Gandalf.

*shrug*

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Melody at 12/1/2010 8:33 AM
Gravatar
"crucifiction" -- I love it!

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by David Ould at 12/1/2010 1:34 PM
Gravatar
my point was you make a good job of punching away at the lightweights, while conveniently failing to address the far richer streams of Christian thought on these sorts of issues that have existed for nigh on 2000 years, that I began to outline for you.

Of course, it looks good for the cheering gallery, but it's hardly the comprehensive victory that you think it is, even if you keep telling us that it is.

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Jason at 12/1/2010 6:26 PM
Gravatar
I can appreciate where you're coming from, I really can, but the thing is this

"Sophisticated" theology really is putting the cart before the horse. It's layer upon layer of increasingly arcane rationalisation for what should, in essence, be a simple problem.

It's like homeopaths putting out ream upon ream of complex technical jargon about quantum effects to explain why homeopathy works, when in fact homeopathy just doesn't work. This is a more apt analogy than most people would give credit for.

It's all very well spending 2000 years trying to explain something, but no-one ever demonstrates that that something is actually there.

If this phenomenon exists, it should be relatively easy to describe and demonstrate. First, describe the god you're trying to prove (which I notice christians have a very hard time even attempting), then we'll look at evidence for it. If you believe in a god that heals the faithful, clinical data should reveal its existence. If you believe in a god that makes your chosen people more moral or societally successful, demographic data should reveal its existence. If you believe in a god that makes fish magically appear in your cupboard, a thorough examination of your cupboard should answer the question one way or another.

First principle: if you believe in a god that actually exists but that god has properties that are a logical impossibility, you've failed. At this point, you should probably rethink the premises rather than rationalising them in increasingly knotted ways to fit your conclusion.

Know what I mean?

So, basically, I don't like to spend time on "sophisticated" theology. because, as I said, it's just people sitting around discussing the properties of Gandalf without ever addressing the fact that Gandalf is fictional.

And don't forget, this is about Houston's god, not yours. Apparently, there are as many definitions of the christian god as there are christians.

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by David Ould at 12/2/2010 1:17 PM
Gravatar
right, so once again you repeat your assertion but singularly fail to actually engage with the point being made.

Jason, preaching to the choir is easy. Putting your glass down for a moment and realising that there's far more work to do than cheap one-liners takes more effort. You will however, no doubt, be already persuaded that all the work is done. Congratulate yourself.

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Jason at 12/3/2010 12:51 AM
Gravatar
"fail to actually engage with the point being made."

And what exactly is that point, David? I was of the opinion it was Houston's tweet, not your transparent appeal to theology.

Theology is the art of rationalisation. Keep ignoring basic problems with your premises and keep building increasingly complex justifications for them. Your idol has feet of clay, and I suspect you know it.

Houston's god, as described in his tweet, is logically untenable. Your god either differs or you have a magical rationalisation for it. please share.

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by David Ould at 12/3/2010 1:42 PM
Gravatar
"magical". No thanks Jason. I think I'll let you continue taking self-satisfying cheap shots.

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Peter at 12/5/2010 7:16 PM
Gravatar
David Ould complained that "drunkenmadman seems a little slow in moderating my comment :)". I've been waiting for three months for David to moderate my comment. Is that typical how Christian leaders act?

I guess they don't like being challenged...

# re: Brian Houston Fails Theology 101

Left by Jason at 12/8/2010 5:38 PM
Gravatar
@David

what is it if it's not magical? Pray tell.
Comments have been closed on this topic.
«November»
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
1234567
 
Vaccination Saves Lives: Stop The Australian Vaccination Network
 
 
Say NO to the National School Chaplaincy Program
 
 

The Blog of Jason Brown, Geek, Atheist, Skeptic, Musician, Mountain Biker, Climber, Curmudgeon.

About
Article Categories
Archives
Post Categories
Image Galleries
Drunk in a Bar in Old Sydney Town
Ego Surfing Central
Friends, Romans, Countrymen
In Vino Veritas
On Not Believing
Shit you need to know
Trapped on a Ledge a Hundred Feet Up
Vaccine Advocacy
Syndication:

RSS