Is there another category?

[Thomasio]

I want less political power to be available to individuals, with the NAP forming the entirety of the scope of political power.

 

... and I'm saying reducing political power will increase money power accordingly.

However much or little you dismantle the state, the more you enable money to buy whatever it want's to have, including law making.

If you dismantle the state, there is no way to prevent money power from taking over, no matter whether you do that slowly or over night.

 

Isn't it obvious enough already?

Remember, the total balance of everything in a state MUST be ZERO.

Private households are ALWAYS saving part of their income for retirement, meaning there has to be someone in the state taking on just as much debt as the private households save.

In the 60s and 70s taxes on businesses were so high that businesses could stay in the profit zone only by continually investing and expanding, which required loans and that's where the savings of the people went.

Having these two balance one another, the state could stay out of the game and run a balanced budget.

 

Later on, as soon as taxes on businesses were reduced so they could afford investments out of their profits, businesses didn't need loans anymore, or at least far less than before, which left the state with the unsolvable problem of a balance that MUST equal out to zero.

 

At same time this spare money businesses suddenly had allowed them to buy the media, where a gigantic propaganda machine actually convinced the people (including you libertarians) that the only way to solve the state debt would be even more tax cuts for businesses or even better the abolishion of the state.

They didn't say, if businesses get even more tax cuts, or if there are no taxes at all anymore, who shall then take the loans the private households require to even out their savings to a total balance of zero.

 

Completely absurd is the solution Germany found for this.

In Germany private households save roughly 10% of their income.

Businesses have become net savers as well.

The state has recently written into the constitution, it cannot run any additional new debt either and must reduce the national debt over time.

The absolutely unavoidable result is, business within Germany was first stagnating, later even going down, the last 16 years have seen slight deflation, while a booming export shifts the burden of the debt onto foreign countries.

Somehow the Germans seem to believe, all this credit given to foreign countries will pay their pensions one day, while it's absolutely obvious that the credit given to foreigners is exclusively used to buy German products and doesn't accumulate ANY profits out of which the loans could be paid back one day.

 

Maybe you can answer me that?

Every single penny of savings MUST find e debtor who owes that penny, so WHO shall take on the debt of an ever increasing amount of savings of the super rich, who do nothing but exponentially increase their wealth?

 

Or in other words: Do you want to make savings illegal? Maybe you want to declare interest on loans illegal?

If not, you have to find someone taking loans in your free society, or else your free world is a logical impossibility.

[jimmo100]

[msg took so long to go through, I thought it hadn't made it so this post was a duplicate]

[Donnadogsoth]

I put $100 in my savings account, and nothing else is done by anyone.  Why does this break the economy?

 

Not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand this.

[jimmo100]

... and I'm saying reducing political power will increase money power accordingly.

However much or little you dismantle the state, the more you enable money to buy whatever it want's to have, including law making.

If you dismantle the state, there is no way to prevent money power from taking over, no matter whether you do that slowly or over night.

 

 

Thomasio,

 

I will address the '[need for savings and loans to balance each other out]' but I first want to respond to what you have said, above.

 

I assume that when you use the term 'money power' you are referring to government officials together with crony capitalists? i.e. it is not crony capitalists in isolation. Am I correct there? Because after the scope is shrunk to NAP, even though ex-cronies will still have their money, they will not have any more on tap. This is crucial. Their dependence on a market which is uncompetitive is EVERYTHING to their survival as dominant players in the market.... EVERYTHING.... obviously I can't stress that enough.

 

It may appear as though crony capitalists can go on dominating the markets after consumers reclaim - en-mass - the responsibility inherent in the role. I realise I'm asking you to imagine something which doesn't exist to a large degree now and which hasn't been practised for a long time to the extent required to render the society 'free'. I get that that is a bit of a stretch, but I'm only asking you to join me in this thought experiment.

 

There is a big IF which is the premise to my argument. And that is this.... individuals... however many decide that they prefer to take this decision, voluntarily opt back in to a) shrinking the scope back to NAP and b) KEEPING it at that proportion.

 

That is the premise. Now if you will embark on this experiment and grant me this premise, for the sake of this discussion, then we can discuss it further. Otherwise we will probably not get very far.

 

Think about what would happen. Think through the process of exactly how crony capitalists would continue to keep new competitors out. Competitors - new market entrants - who didn't before have the legal means to associate, to form some level of meaningful alternative to satisfy - what are currently clearly unsatisfied - consumers in today's crony-dominated market, suddenly no longer have that legal barrier to entry. They no longer have the regulatory burden... of taxes and bureaucracy and a depreciating currency. The spigot of money printing is cut-off. Boom... just like that. No more transfer of wealth by stealth. All that is left is the vast majority of their existing income - up to 50% more than they had before and vast swathes of unsatisfied customers and a fat, lazy privileged class of cronies who never had to really apply themselves to satisfying customers(the ultimate arbiter of whether or not they were pleasing cutomers was always the state, rather than risk-bearing customers).

 

I'm saying this does require some mental gymnastics i.e. bearing in mind that two-part premise I stipulated, but if you grant me that premise, how would it be possible for any crony-capitalist to go on preventing new entrants from taking a share of their markets, other than having to offer their wares at a lower-cost - low enough to prevent new entrants over time? Assuming they could do this which would be a massive ask... because they only know one thing.... how to survive in a rigged game. They are the weakest players, not the strongest. Don't confuse dominance with strength, in a crony-capitalist system. They are the weakest players and they know it. Which is why they would pull out all of the stops to prevent consumers from reclaiming responsibility as consumers. Including taking us to war..... one of the most effective ways of inducing fear in the population.

 

Think about the Cold War and what happened when it ended. Think about the military industrial complex's need for another war. It serves a purpose. As soon as there are no monsters abroad, people begin to inform themselves. They begin to join the dots and to discover the fraud that is money-printing and central banking in general. This spells upset for politicians and their crony-capitalists. It spells and end to privilege and a return to open competition. And they are very alert to it.

 

Their biggest fear is that ordinary people will gain a simple but thorough understanding of what constitutes fraud. And hence be able to unshackle themselves from the spell they have been under, restore limits to political power and quite possibly, in the processs, gain the ability to maintian those limits.

 

Of course there are going to be losers. Economically and socially there are going to be losers. The next generation is going to want answers from their parents... and their children from them. How could you let this happen? This kind of talk unfortunately can feed the fears. But some attempt has to be made to wake people up. Because it can and will be far worse not to wake up. The nightmare is going to continue and the longer it continues the worse it'll be.

 

Their only route to avoid being brought to account is to perpetuate an environment of fear which will keep people running to the state for protection. And as long as they do this, people will be running in exactly the wrong direction viz., into the arms of their enemy. The enemy, as I defined it: those who claim to have your best interests at heart(liberty) but who work to undermine individual responsibility. That one-sided coin.

 

So, I'm asking you to have a look at what would happen - how their dominance could be perpetuated, given that two-part premise. Regulatory capture is only possible through continued relinquishing of consumer responsibility to mitigate or bear market risk, to the state. Representative power *is* misrepresentative power. Unless one has a workable plan to turn politicians into moral paragons of virtue, one had better be prepared to face the reality of the mechanics involved in regulatory capture. The power to dominate markets comes from consumers relinquishing their consumer responsibility. They are cowed into it. It wasn't always this easy to buy politicians. There is a trajectory and it corresponds to that level of consumer responsibility. The modern consumer is epitomized by his entitlement mentality... this is a complete 180 degree reversal of pre-1850's American consumer values.

 

Now, if it can be made to swing 180 degrees in one direction, it can be made to swing 180 degrees in the other. Most probably at a substantial cost. You can't expect to give up your responsibility without sacrificing your liberty... which will not be handed back to you with an apology. Previously, revolutions were required to regain it or at least attempt to regain it. Most of the time that is a very, very costly way to regain liberty. Very often it didn't come off. It remains to be seen if there is another way. But consumers need to wake up.... fast because it gets harder and harder to do an about turn. As Mises said of middle-of-the-road policies i.e. interventionism, they always lead to full-blown Socialism. And it was Thatcher, who said the problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Both were spot on, with regard to these statements.

[Thomasio]

I put $100 in my savings account, and nothing else is done by anyone.  Why does this break the economy?

 

Not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand this.

 

Easy to explain.

 

First consider, what if you just put a part of your money aside for a pension plan, but you don't get any interest paid on your savings.

 

If you consider an average life expectancy of 80 years, a start of your money earning after school and university, at the age of 25-30, a retirement age of 65 and the fact that on start of your carreer you won't make enough money to save any for retirement, maybe even have to pay back a student loan, you have to plan on saving roughly 30% of your income on a pension plan so you can keep your lifestyle up after you retire.

Considered inflation and the fact that due to medical expenses at old age you will most likely need more money later on, while that money has less value, you would have to save maybe 50% or even more of your income on a pension plan.

If you take inflation out of the picture, by going back to a gold standard or something like that, you still need to save about 50% of your income.

If you take the fact that our life expectancy increases by about 3 months per year and if you plan on retiring in 30 years, you end up having to save about 75% of your income on a pension plan.

Do you know of anyone doing that? I don't.

 

Gambling at the stock market just doesn't do it, because that's a zero balance gamble, for anyone who gains there's someone else losing, so unless you like the risk of not having any money later in exchange for the option to be rich later, feel free to do that, but a secure pension plan is something else.

 

That's why everybody tries to get a secure interest paid on his savings, that at least evens out inflation.

Usually most people expect to get out more than inflation, so that saving 10-20% of your income during your carreer will be enough to afford a life after retirement.

IFFFF you want any interest paid on your savings, you need to find a debtor who takes your savings and pays it back later on with interest.

In ANY society there are only THREE possible sources, who might need a loan and would pay interest on it.

1) Private people

2) Businesses

3) The state

 

Since ALL private people need to save for their pension plans, those don't need a loan, except of their student loans on start and maybe a car and/or a house at the beginning of their carreer, but overall that's not enough, in total private households are net savers.

Since a "free society" doesn't have a state that runs increasing debt, that leaves only businesses as a possible source for paying interest.

IFFFFF a free society allows businesses through tax breaks and/or not even charging any taxes from start, to make so much profit that they can out of their profits invest and expand without needing loans, nobody pays interest on a loan anymore, interest rates go to zero (as you may know from current interest rates nearly worldwide) and the society goes down the drain, because nobody will be able to save enough for a pension plan anymore unless he is born rich and has from birth (almost) enough money to afford retirement.

 

The fact that this is already in the process of falling apart you can see in details, like the fact that almost all automobile companies have founded their own banks, meaning instead of taking loans to expand their business, they give loans to private people and cash interest, thus even DEcreasing possible sources for private pension plans.

Currently there's the state left who takes on the gigantic debt needed to provide the required sources who pay interest on private savings, but if you take that out of the picture, even if you "only" stop increasing national debt, as long as you cannot name some other source who would pay interest on private savings, your society is done.

[Donnadogsoth]

Easy to explain.

 

First consider, what if you just put a part of your money aside for a pension plan, but you don't get any interest paid on your savings.

 

If you consider an average life expectancy of 80 years, a start of your money earning after school and university, at the age of 25-30, a retirement age of 65 and the fact that on start of your carreer you won't make enough money to save any for retirement, maybe even have to pay back a student loan, you have to plan on saving roughly 30% of your income on a pension plan so you can keep your lifestyle up after you retire.

Considered inflation and the fact that due to medical expenses at old age you will most likely need more money later on, while that money has less value, you would have to save maybe 50% or even more of your income on a pension plan.

If you take inflation out of the picture, by going back to a gold standard or something like that, you still need to save about 50% of your income.

If you take the fact that our life expectancy increases by about 3 months per year and if you plan on retiring in 30 years, you end up having to save about 75% of your income on a pension plan.

Do you know of anyone doing that? I don't.

 

Gambling at the stock market just doesn't do it, because that's a zero balance gamble, for anyone who gains there's someone else losing, so unless you like the risk of not having any money later in exchange for the option to be rich later, feel free to do that, but a secure pension plan is something else.

 

That's why everybody tries to get a secure interest paid on his savings, that at least evens out inflation.

Usually most people expect to get out more than inflation, so that saving 10-20% of your income during your carreer will be enough to afford a life after retirement.

IFFFF you want any interest paid on your savings, you need to find a debtor who takes your savings and pays it back later on with interest.

In ANY society there are only THREE possible sources, who might need a loan and would pay interest on it.

1) Private people

2) Businesses

3) The state

 

Since ALL private people need to save for their pension plans, those don't need a loan, except of their student loans on start and maybe a car and/or a house at the beginning of their carreer, but overall that's not enough, in total private households are net savers.

Since a "free society" doesn't have a state that runs increasing debt, that leaves only businesses as a possible source for paying interest.

IFFFFF a free society allows businesses through tax breaks and/or not even charging any taxes from start, to make so much profit that they can out of their profits invest and expand without needing loans, nobody pays interest on a loan anymore, interest rates go to zero (as you may know from current interest rates nearly worldwide) and the society goes down the drain, because nobody will be able to save enough for a pension plan anymore unless he is born rich and has from birth (almost) enough money to afford retirement.

 

The fact that this is already in the process of falling apart you can see in details, like the fact that almost all automobile companies have founded their own banks, meaning instead of taking loans to expand their business, they give loans to private people and cash interest, thus even DEcreasing possible sources for private pension plans.

Currently there's the state left who takes on the gigantic debt needed to provide the required sources who pay interest on private savings, but if you take that out of the picture, even if you "only" stop increasing national debt, as long as you cannot name some other source who would pay interest on private savings, your society is done.

 

You're saying that in a free society retirement is impossible.  Never thought about it like that.  Very interesting, thank you.

 

(1) In my experience savings accounts offer a pittance in interest.  So by "saving for retirement" you must mean pensions, financial instruments, investments, that kind of thing, right?

 

(2) What about the unpayable government debt?  The possibility of a Glass-Steagall reorganisation of liabilities has been floated, i.e., to put the country into bankruptcy reorganisation with a "firewall" between the financial and the physical assets to avoid plunging the economy into a depression or worse-than-depression.  That doesn't achieve an Ancap "free society" but it does address the problems with the current system.  Any thoughts about that?

[Thomasio]

You're saying that in a free society retirement is impossible.  Never thought about it like that.  Very interesting, thank you.

 

(1) In my experience savings accounts offer a pittance in interest.  So by "saving for retirement" you must mean pensions, financial instruments, investments, that kind of thing, right?

No, retirement isn't impossible in a free society, with or without interest.

Without interest, meaning without a sufficient amount of debtors, it means retirement will mean a lowering of your lifestyle, maybe to half your previous lifestyle or something like that.

It means during your retirement you will use up what you saved during your life and there will be nothing left for your children to inherit, unless you die way before the expected date.

It also means, most banks as well as most financial services, such as pension funds won't be needed anymore, money transfer services like Paypal will be sufficient, simply because there is no point for a private saver to put his money into a place that has expenses and charges the saver a fee, it will be cheaper storing your money at home and if you don't trust in fiat money you can buy gold or something instead.

 

(2) What about the unpayable government debt?  The possibility of a Glass-Steagall reorganisation of liabilities has been floated, i.e., to put the country into bankruptcy reorganisation with a "firewall" between the financial and the physical assets to avoid plunging the economy into a depression or worse-than-depression.  That doesn't achieve an Ancap "free society" but it does address the problems with the current system.  Any thoughts about that?

Government debt is the unavoidable consequence of giving tax breaks for businesses, because every penny higher profit for a business means, that business needs less loans, and that means there will be private savers leftover who cannot find a debtor for their savings, which either requires the state to jump in and take on the debt, or leave the saver with no interest paid on his savings.

As you will surely know, we're at a point where we have BOTH, huge government debt AND next to no interest on private savings, which is the logic thing that happens once the state itself exceeds its debt limit.

In other words, this national debt was from start a bad idea, should have never even begun, but the ONLY way of avoiding national debt would have been finding another source where interest on private savings could come from.

 

Given todays situation, there are a number of possible things that could be done:

 

1) The Japanese way, just keep printing money to infinity.

Downside of that, as you can see in Japan, is eternal deflation and depression.

 

2) Take the money printing out of private hands and into state property, THEN print 19 trillion dollars and pay out the national debt.

Downside of that would be runaway inflation.

 

3) Find a new natural debtor who will take on the necessary debt that pays interest on private savings.

As I explained above, that can only be the businesses and the only way to get them there would be a gigantic tax increase on businesses, so heavy that they lose ALL their profits from the last 20 or 30 years and still have to pay more taxes than they make profit, so they require loans to expand as their only means to survive.

Those taxes would pay the national debt and give private savers a debtor at same time.

Downside of that would be, as you can tell by what happened in the last 30 years already, businesses would move out of the state, to places with lower tax rates.

 

4) A one time tax on the super rich.

That's the easiest way to do it, causing the least harm to society, but of course it's the most repelled argument, because precisely those super rich who would have to pay, own the media, meaning they run the propaganda of why this shouldn't be done.

Not sure about the numbers in the US, so I can give you only the numbers from Germany, but I believe the numbers in the US can't be much different.

In Germany private people own roughly 5 trillion EUR in plain cash, EXCLUDING real estate, cars, or any other hard property, where the richest 10% of Germans own roughly 4 trillion of those 5 trillion, while the lower 90% have their money in hard assets like their own house.

Germanys national debt is just over 2 trillion, so if the richest 10% of Germans (that would be those making over 1 million EUR per year) would pay a 5% extra tax ONLY on the cash they own, the national debt would be gone within 10 years.

5% is LESS than what those super rich make in interest on their money per year, meaning they wouldn't lose any wealth, they might not even notice the extra tax, they would only gain a bit less for a limited time of 10 years.

 

I know, I know, the counter argument to a tax on the rich is all about fairness towards the oh so hard working rich people who earned their wealth through hard work, but then you may aks those super rich, if the prefer runaway inflation or a state bankruptcy or a possible civil war in which ALL their money would disappear over night.

If they don't prefer that, you will get them to agree that paying 5% for 10 years is FAR better than ANY possible alternative.

 

Either way and no matter what solution a state will go for, as long as they don't find a natural debtor for private savings or make interest on loans illegal, the process of accumulating new national debt would start over right after.

Or in other words, giving businesses further tax breaks or not undoing the tax break they got already and still allowing private people to save for retirement will NEVER solve ANYTHING, not in our current system nor in a free society, not with fiat money nor with a gold standard.

[Donnadogsoth]

The debt per se can be dealt with by

 

5) filing for bankruptcy.  The State puts the entire country in bankruptcy reorganisation and cancels the national debt, with the proviso given above about separating physical assets from financial assets.  The debt itself isn't just bad, it's unconstitutional, it was created by the repeal of the Glass-Steagal law separating the physical economy from the predatory financial economy.  Without this the economy is doomed as the multiple bubbles including the derivatives bubble (read: economic brain aneurysm) inevitably pop.

 

I can't gainsay what you've said about the need for debt and interest, but I do know the national debt as it stands is only an insoluble problem for those who reject the Glass-Steagal principle.

[Thomasio]

State bankruptcy is identical to confiscating the money from all those who own state bonds.

That's for a large part the same super rich ones that would pay the extra tax I suggested in #4, so no real big deal on that one.

But for the HUGE downside of a state bankruptcy loads of funds, like the pension fund are invested in state bonds, meaning after a state bankruptcy a huge part of all pensions couldn't be paid anymore.

[Donnadogsoth]

Can we engage in bankruptcy reorganisation and leave the pension fund and similar funds intact?

[Thomasio]

Yes, but then there isn't enough to pay the national debt, unless you take the rest through one of the measures I suggested before, where IFF you take #4 the ENTIRE bankruptcy is almost identical to an extra tax on the rich, only that through bankruptcy it comes all in once, a confiscation equal to a 50% tax on all private cash above 1 million, instead of my suggested 5% for 10 years.

[Donnadogsoth]

Yes, but then there isn't enough to pay the national debt, unless you take the rest through one of the measures I suggested before, where IFF you take #4 the ENTIRE bankruptcy is almost identical to an extra tax on the rich, only that through bankruptcy it comes all in once, a confiscation equal to a 50% tax on all private cash above 1 million, instead of my suggested 5% for 10 years.

 

Seems like powerful incentive for the rich to forestall national bankruptcy procedures for as long as possible.

[shirgall]

Seems like powerful incentive for the rich to forestall national bankruptcy procedures for as long as possible.

 

The truly rich have hedges against most anything, including politicians in their pocket.

[Thomasio]

The truly rich have hedges against most anything, including politicians in their pocket.

 

I kinda doubt that would work out.

Hedges are nothing more than bets of one rich person or business against another, the poor aren't involved in this game (other than with the pension fund).

So if ALL the rich people and corporations lost 50% of all the cash they own, hedges wouldn't get paid either, simply because the ones losing that bet would be bankrupt and not able to pay.

So you might end up with half the rich losing everything and the other half get out without a loss, still in the overall picture, 1/2 of all wealth of the super rich would be gone.

 

The obvious downside would then be, instead of the top 0.1% literally owning the country, the top 0.05% would own the country, meaning with even less competition on the top, society would get even closer to dictatorship.

[shirgall]

I kinda doubt that would work out.

Hedges are nothing more than bets of one rich person or business against another, the poor aren't involved in this game (other than with the pension fund).

So if ALL the rich people and corporations lost 50% of all the cash they own, hedges wouldn't get paid either, simply because the ones losing that bet would be bankrupt and not able to pay.

So you might end up with half the rich losing everything and the other half get out without a loss, still in the overall picture, 1/2 of all wealth of the super rich would be gone.

 

The obvious downside would then be, instead of the top 0.1% literally owning the country, the top 0.05% would own the country, meaning with even less competition on the top, society would get even closer to dictatorship.

 

Hedges are more complex than counter-bets. They are actions taken so that if bets don't go the way they want it lessens the impact of failure. Insurance is a hedge that seems like a bet, sure, but getting a politician to bail you out or change the law is a great deal more complicated than a bet. Remember that the only difference between the government and the mafia is an amplified aura of legitimacy.

[Thomasio]

Politicians can bail you out, only if they find a source from where they take the bailout money.

If in the process the value of that money goes down, the whole bailout becomes useless, so money printing isn't an option.

Additional state debt will get the state even closer to bankruptcy, which is what the rich want to prevent, because it endangers their wealth, as explained above.

The only other source of money, the working people are by now at the edge of poverty, a few pennies more tax might tip them over into civil war, so not really a solution either.

 

Or in other words, just like the mafia who can't do anything but murder debtors who cannot pay, politics cannot find additional bailout money indefinately, sooner or later they will get themselves into a civil war.

[Donnadogsoth]

Politicians can bail you out, only if they find a source from where they take the bailout money.

If in the process the value of that money goes down, the whole bailout becomes useless, so money printing isn't an option.

Additional state debt will get the state even closer to bankruptcy, which is what the rich want to prevent, because it endangers their wealth, as explained above.

The only other source of money, the working people are by now at the edge of poverty, a few pennies more tax might tip them over into civil war, so not really a solution either.

 

Or in other words, just like the mafia who can't do anything but murder debtors who cannot pay, politics cannot find additional bailout money indefinately, sooner or later they will get themselves into a civil war.

 

What about international lending organisations like the IMF or the World Bank?  Won't they be viewed as an option to prevent civil war?

[Thomasio]

What about international lending organisations like the IMF or the World Bank?  Won't they be viewed as an option to prevent civil war?

 

The IMF just like ANY other similar organization have just ONE recipe for countries they get to.

That's cut wages, cut spending, cut debt.

 

As explained above, a policy that tries to cut debt EVERYWEHERE will on the other side of the equasion ALWAYS leave a growing amount of savings that cannot find a debtor anymore who would pay interest on it.

That leads to poverty at old age and all the other problems explained above.

 

So yes, theoretically the IMF or the World Bank COULD help, but only if they change their policies on a most fundamental level, meaning FIRST they have to find debtors for private savings, THEN they can apply other policies.

 

Funny part is, IFFF they found a debtor other than the state itself, there wouldn't be a problem anymore, all problems would solve themselves, no further policies needed, simply because once a debtor has been found who pays interest on savings, the state doesn't have to run a debt anymore, it doesn't even have to raise taxes, it would automatically get more tax out of the same tax level, out of which it could pay its debt until all debt is paid and the extra money could be used for tax cuts for ALL people, not just the super rich.

[Des]

My starting point is that I have some control and influence over my life and how the world develops, even if to a miniscule degree. This is the case regardless of whether I believe it. If I don't believe it, the world is also changed minisculey probably nudging it in the opposite direction.

 

So given that as my starting consideration, and that there are not-unassailable barriers to increasing my control and influence of my own affairs, I can then turn my attention the barriers - actual or potential. One of them could be the assertion that some higher power - an omnipotent being - determines my future, rather than me. I would treat that as a claim. An unsubstantiated claim which, which on further evidence could turn out to be true. But I am not there yet. There is evidence to suggest people do go to extraordinary lengths to manipulate others into doing x, y or z. But the extent to which nothing can be done about that is very much up for debate.

 

So I'm saying I don't know to what extent some higher power has influence over me, but so far have pretty high level of certainty that I have some freedom to improve my well-being and those who voluntarily interact with me. I proceed from there and push back against oppressive influence as and when I'm willing and able to do so. What else should I do? As to how far that will take me, is a matter of debate. Depends on one's viewpoint. For any student of history, it should be clear that adopting this approach has yielded a significant improvement in the standard of living for millions of people.

 

That I know. I can observe some things at least.

 

One thing I have observed is that those who help me to reclaim responsibility, to the extent I'm able to do so at the time, are very much worth interacting with. Those who pity me and point to external factors only as the source of my woes, rendering me at the mercy of the the external world, I don't have an awful lot of time for. To me that is the gospel of the one-sided coin - that individual liberty and individual responsibility are *not* inextricably linked - and those preaching it fall on both sides of the theist/atheist debate. Generally they are found undermining individual responsibility whilst passing themselves off as noble, selfless friends of humanity. That is their hallmark.

 

It feels quite good to be able to tell friends from enemies, I have to say. And I don't mean enemies in the eternal sense. I consider all men to be basically good. But nevertheless, good men can be led astray by one means or another if they are not constantly vigilant, and inadvertently throw a series of spanners into the works.

 

They - these enemies or misguided friends - once occupied the ranks of the Roman Catholic church but since the separation of church and state, without the legal power to dictate what people believe, these individuals have moved on to similarly, if not worse, state incarnations of that church-state alliance(i.e. the state-medical alliance in the form of Mental Health law). Ireland is the only theocratic state remaining in the West, as far as I know. I'd have to check, but for the most part there was a clear-cut separation creating a gaping hole within the power of the state to coerce individuals.

 

If individuals are alerted to this, a stop can be put to far greater damage which is currently being inflicted on humanity. I'm not saying that is a little if. I'm just highlighting what I deem is within the average individual's reach.

The vigilance that I am advising, is that in all conversation (because all conversation is to some extent, to co-ordinate action [even if I say I prefer Rock music to Rap music, you might adjust your playlist while I'm in your home]), we should use the rule which applies in school debates: that the omnipotent being does not feature in the conversation (except to explain again why the omnipotent being should not feature in the conversation). The why is: because one can only haul out the god card to manipulatively co-ordinate action. One cannot feature an omnipotent being in any rational motivation for a change of behaviour. As I typed that, I tried to poke a hole in it. So, yes, maybe it you argue that a person believes (irrationally) in an omnipotent being, and should be treated specially as a result - So maybe distinguish between co-ordinating behaviour due to allegedly known features of a being who would be capable of obliterating his own/known features - and co-ordinating action due to the detectable apparent irrationality of minds (which can't be directly probed to verify actual belief or disbelief - so they could feign belief as a manipulative technique).

[jimmo100]

The vigilance that I am advising, is that in all conversation (because all conversation is to some extent, to co-ordinate action [even if I say I prefer Rock music to Rap music, you might adjust your playlist while I'm in your home]), we should use the rule which applies in school debates: that the omnipotent being does not feature in the conversation (except to explain again why the omnipotent being should not feature in the conversation). The why is: because one can only haul out the god card to manipulatively co-ordinate action. One cannot feature an omnipotent being in any rational motivation for a change of behaviour. As I typed that, I tried to poke a hole in it. So, yes, maybe it you argue that a person believes (irrationally) in an omnipotent being, and should be treated specially as a result - So maybe distinguish between co-ordinating behaviour due to allegedly known features of a being who would be capable of obliterating his own/known features - and co-ordinating action due to the detectable apparent irrationality of minds (which can't be directly probed to verify actual belief or disbelief - so they could feign belief as a manipulative technique).

 

Des, I would say that at no point, during a conversation with someone playing the god card, am I left defenceless in the face of any attempt to manipulate me.

 

Could you give me an example of how one might be 'manipulated' into doing something one didn't explicitly/implicitly consent to doing, by someone else, playing the god card?

[sweathog1]

These definitions I'm quoting/paraphrasing from dictionary.com:

 

A theist is one who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

 

An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

 

An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

 

A Gnostic is a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.

 

 

My question is isn't there another category?

 

Using the above definitions, theists believe, atheists deny, Gnostics claim superior knowledge and agnostics claim one cannot know anything about these things.

 

What about someone who admits to having no certainty on the subject of the existence of god or gods but who is open to persuasion?

I'm an agnostic, with great trepidation I write this, was once in a debate (Is there really a God?)  that lasted over two years. (heard all the arguments) Conclusion was that there is no proof either way. Least of all proving a negative. However there are those that have had direct experiences such as a few who claim so in history, and those who do claim they are Gods themselves, beyond the crazies. (lessor and greater Gods) gnostics.  However using your definitions I am an agnostic.

[Thomasio]

By the very definition of religion there can't be any kind of proof for the existence of a god, simply because if there was any proof, it wouldn't be a matter of faith anymore, there would be no belief needed, one could rely on facts.

 

The fact that there are no two believers in the world, throughout the past as well as in the present as well as in all future, who believe literally the precise same things, proves in itself, that even IFFFFF at least one of them was correct, the probability that any given specific human could be just that one is indefinately small and it allows the conclusion, even IFFFF there was a god and an afterlife and a heaven and a hell and all that, the max amount of people in heaven would be ONE SINGLE person and if that one hasn't been born yet, heaven will be empty for the time being.

All the others neccessary believe in partially wrong things, therefore can't go to heaven.

 

.

.

.

.

.

 

Just for the fun of it:

 

An atheist, lets call him Fred, has died and to his surprise he finds himself in the afterlife, in front of a huge gate.

He wasn't a believer and he has committed several sins throughout his life, so he is quite sure, he'll be put in hell.

But when the gate opens for him he finds inside a gigantic park, a lovely small river flowing through fields of green grass, lovely trees provide just the right amount of shade, the sun is shining just right, perfect temperature for a gorgeous walk in the park.

A bit puzzled Fred walks on and gets to a little wooden booth, where some guy inside is serving drinks out of the window.

Fred approaches the guy and asks him: "What is this place, how did I get here and who are you?

The guy replies: "You're dead, this is hell and I'm the devil."

Fred is completely puzzled and asks: "But hell is supposed to be punishment for sins and all that?"

The devil replies: "I know, but that's just rumors from earth, not true, enjoy your eternal life in hell ........ would you like a drink?"

 

Fred is stunned and speechless, he walks away and explores the area, but other than even more lovely terrain, with some impressive mountain ranges in the distance, he cannot find any downside, it's all just great.

People walking around, everybody looking just great, pretty girls, handsome guys, everybody enjoying their time, and all that.

 

Then, after an hour walk, Fred comes to a gigantic building.

Thick concrete walls, no windows, a very massive steel door with half a dozen heavy locks and a tiny little peephole in it.

Fred walks over and looks into the peephole.

Inside he sees precisely what one would imagine as hell, rivers of lava all over the floor, clouds of yellow vapor floating around, loads of people burning and screaming and all that.

 

Fred walks back to the wooden booth, where the devil is still serving drinks.

Fred screams: "You devil, now I know the truth! You just wanted to give me an illusion, so my pain will be even greater afterwards, right?"

The devil replies: "Nope, I told you the truth, you may enjoy your eternal life here."

Fred points to the distance: "You can't fool me anymore, what about that huge building down there? That's where you will put me in soon, right?"

The devil replies: "Ah, don't pay attention to that, those are the Catholics, they want it like that."

[Donnadogsoth]

By the very definition of religion there can't be any kind of proof for the existence of a god, simply because if there was any proof, it wouldn't be a matter of faith anymore, there would be no belief needed, one could rely on facts.

 

Can you please refer me to any Christian authority who agrees with your above statement?

[jimmo100]

I'm an agnostic, with great trepidation I write this, was once in a debate (Is there really a God?)  that lasted over two years. (heard all the arguments) Conclusion was that there is no proof either way. Least of all proving a negative. However there are those that have had direct experiences such as a few who claim so in history, and those who do claim they are Gods themselves, beyond the crazies. (lessor and greater Gods) gnostics.  However using your definitions I am an agnostic.

Thanks, sweathog1.

 

Given two things: a) that it is possible not to know all there is to know, and b) that people's definitions vary, sometimes wildly, I expect at least most of the time to hear a lot of people saying hey, listen, that claim you are making about x, y or z.... it may be true, but from where I'm standing, I just can't tell one way or the other. So good luck to you. If it floats your boat, jump in... knock yourself out, but I'm going to carry on regardless.

 

Now, mostly, we do see this ... in the West. Most people take this general attitude to unusual beliefs. But not everyone. Some have taken it upon themselves, as a personal mission, to engage in fervant and, at times, vitriolic indiscriminate anti-religious ranting. It's the religious equivalent of bigotry. Which is still legal in the West... thank God! I think this form of bigotry should be tolerated legally. That is to say it does not justify physical force, in reaction. Freedom of speech is actually a tough thing... because it works both ways. And hence it means nobody can hide behind the state to avoid other people taking potshots at one's treasured beliefs. I hasten to add, however, where it may not be obvious to some, that the freedom to do something is not the same thing as an invitation to do it! Just because you *can* doesn't mean that you *should*.

 

Where others get the energy to spend their lives making counter-claims, where they themselves have no evidence, intrigues me. I'm not saying there isn't a good explanation for the way they feel. There may well be. But where it reaches a point at which the way they feel, or more specifically what they are prepared to do about the way they feel, begins to encroach on individual liberty itself, is red-flag territory. And of course this is so ironic because the very thing which is - in the West, anyway - no longer a legal threat to them or anyone else, by calling for an end to religious freedom would take us back to the essence of a theocracy i.e. the absence of the freedom to believe.

 

 

If you check their narrative, these people make no distinction between coercive religion and non-coercive religion. I don't know about other threads - I certainly haven't read them all but so far I haven't seen one of them make this crucial distinction. Not one. To them there is no difference between religion in say Iran and religion in the USA.

 

See, it's not theocracies that gets their beef. It's religious viewpoints, everywhere. If you've heard of Sam Harris, one of the more prominent anti-religious zealots, who has a large following, he has called for an 'end to all religion'. Now, as I have stated, I get why religion itself in theocracies is a bad thing.... specifically it is the alliance between Church and State. But I really don't get some people's obsession with religion in the West, unless.... they think the separation of Church and State did not occur.

 

IFFFF that is the case, then that *would* explain an awful lot. (Ignorance of history usually does explain a lot)

 

A person who doesn't know the difference between life under a coercive state and life under a strictly limited state, is going to call for more government power whenever he feels threatened. The problem of course, for anyone who still hasn't noticed, is that making people feel threatened is the stock and trade of governments and their cronies.... because it shuts down the ability to think critically. Because this - critical thinking - is the only thing which keeps government power in-check. The .... only.... thing.

 

People who are too easily threatened, in this sense, are no longer able to make distinctions, to delineate differences and similarities.... everything becomes a broad, hostile generality. Their only means of engaging is through the use of blunt instruments i.e. an overblown legal system. When you and I see A, B and C, they see A, A and A. They are typically never specific about what it is about religion which justifies them spending so much time and energy in trying to refute other people's beliefs. Perhaps if they were, I'd have more to agree with them about.

 

People in Iran are threatened with force if they do not believe or accept certain 'truths'. They can and are physically attacked, tortured and killed. This is coercive religion.

 

In the West, people are - apart from one major exception, which no-one in this thread has so far asked me to elaborate on - free to believe in all kinds of things but they have no state power to coerce their fellow human beings into those beliefs. You may not physically attack, torture or kill someone, in the USA, because of their world view. It is illegal!

 

That is a pretty fundamental distinction to make, right there.

 

So, if we define crime as violation of the NAP, then it is clear what harm can be done to a non-criminal in Iran, in the name of religion. The question is what harm can be done to a non-criminal in the USA, in the name of religion?

[Des]

Des, I would say that at no point, during a conversation with someone playing the god card, am I left defenceless in the face of any attempt to manipulate me.

 

Could you give me an example of how one might be 'manipulated' into doing something one didn't explicitly/implicitly consent to doing, by someone else, playing the god card?

Oh, to clarify, I was not saying it will work, my meaning is that it only has usefulness for manipulation. If a person "plays" the god card honestly, they would say : "well there may be an omnipotent being, in which case there is nothing we can know, but let's pretend we know stuff, because we are going to make decisions, and let's make them on what we think we know, disregarding the possibility of omnipotence." - Kind of like I pulled it out for no reason, admit I have to discard it (which you could say, is not really playing it).

 

An example of one playing the god card to manipulate, is my parents telling me the omnipotent being says I must honour my father and my mother. The effect of this manipulation is that I did not enquire further, to inform my decisions better, I conformed to what my parents expected of my 16-year-old self, though I had the physical and mental capacity to disregard them and go and support myself. In this, I have a complaint about the design of your question - because - I consented to be subject to the rule of my parents - but due to fraud - not because they convinced me (by honest means) that they had better answers than I could find elsewhere.

 

Sure, I allow the people I know, to talk about god, because I estimate I will waste time trying to de-contaminate their minds. So then I disregard the deity stuff, and see if I still consent to the proposed co-ordination of action. The people around me act atheist (they drive to work, they pay bills [they don't try pray themselves to work or pray the bills paid]).

 

Do you do what I do? I translate the god out of whatever people say, so "God bless you" means something about their good wishes toward me - hmm?

[Thomasio]

Can you please refer me to any Christian authority who agrees with your above statement?

 

There is no such thing.

In fact there can't be any such thing.

Christians argue in circles, god exists, because the bible says so and the bible is correct because the bible says so.

Other than that, there's the god of the gaps, where Christians argue, you can't explain this and that, therefore god must have done it, therefore god must exist.

 

Not only can't there be any Christian authority who agrees with my statement, there literally can't be any Christian authority, because they don't have any proof either.

They claim to have proof, but all they do is argue in circles and fill in gaps.

 

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence for any religion, which is quite logic, simply because if there were evidence, science could verify it, set up experiments that reproduce and verify the proof for an overnatural existence and everybody would believe it, because it wouldn't require faith anymore.

As soon as anyone would come up with the slightest bit of evidence for a god, be sure, he'd get the nobel prize.

[Des]

Can you please refer me to any Christian authority who agrees with your above statement?

Both in the academic sense of the word authority, and in the sense in which authority gives the right to command - there can be no authority if there is an omnipotent being.

 

If there is an omnipotent being, no academic enquiry is valid because the omnipotent being can manufacture data or change upon a whim.

If there is an omnipotent being, and if there is someone with a right to command, we can't know who has that right, because our academic enquiry into the validity of that command authority, is invalidated by the omnipotence, as mentioned above.

 

Edit:

In addition, the omnipotence invalidates our enquiry into whether or not a person agrees with a statement.

[Donnadogsoth]

Both in the academic sense of the word authority, and in the sense in which authority gives the right to command - there can be no authority if there is an omnipotent being.

 

If there is an omnipotent being, no academic enquiry is valid because the omnipotent being can manufacture data or change upon a whim.

If there is an omnipotent being, and if there is someone with a right to command, we can't know who has that right, because our academic enquiry into the validity of that command authority, is invalidated by the omnipotence, as mentioned above.

 

Edit:

In addition, the omnipotence invalidates our enquiry into whether or not a person agrees with a statement.

 

Please define "omnipotent being".  Can an omnipotent being make a legal $20 bill?

[Thomasio]

An omnipotent being could convert all the diamonds in the world to glass and then sell a handful of diamonds himself that then would be worth way more than $20 bill.

Legally? There is no law against converting diamonds to glass anywhere in the world.

Immoral? He might argue, the super rich owners of diamonds were immoral in stealing their wealth from the working people, therefore it's morally right to take away from them what they have stolen.

[sweathog1]

Thanks, sweathog1.

 

Given two things: a) that it is possible not to know all there is to know, and b) that people's definitions vary, sometimes wildly, I expect at least most of the time to hear a lot of people saying hey, listen, that claim you are making about x, y or z.... it may be true, but from where I'm standing, I just can't tell one way or the other. So good luck to you. If it floats your boat, jump in... knock yourself out, but I'm going to carry on regardless.

 

Now, mostly, we do see this ... in the West. Most people take this general attitude to unusual beliefs. But not everyone. Some have taken it upon themselves, as a personal mission, to engage in fervant and, at times, vitriolic indiscriminate anti-religious ranting. It's the religious equivalent of bigotry. Which is still legal in the West... thank God! I think this form of bigotry should be tolerated legally. That is to say it does not justify physical force, in reaction. Freedom of speech is actually a tough thing... because it works both ways. And hence it means nobody can hide behind the state to avoid other people taking potshots at one's treasured beliefs. I hasten to add, however, where it may not be obvious to some, that the freedom to do something is not the same thing as an invitation to do it! Just because you *can* doesn't mean that you *should*.

 

Where others get the energy to spend their lives making counter-claims, where they themselves have no evidence, intrigues me. I'm not saying there isn't a good explanation for the way they feel. There may well be. But where it reaches a point at which the way they feel, or more specifically what they are prepared to do about the way they feel, begins to encroach on individual liberty itself, is red-flag territory. And of course this is so ironic because the very thing which is - in the West, anyway - no longer a legal threat to them or anyone else, by calling for an end to religious freedom would take us back to the essence of a theocracy i.e. the absence of the freedom to believe.

 

 

If you check their narrative, these people make no distinction between coercive religion and non-coercive religion. I don't know about other threads - I certainly haven't read them all but so far I haven't seen one of them make this crucial distinction. Not one. To them there is no difference between religion in say Iran and religion in the USA.

 

See, it's not theocracies that gets their beef. It's religious viewpoints, everywhere. If you've heard of Sam Harris, one of the more prominent anti-religious zealots, who has a large following, he has called for an 'end to all religion'. Now, as I have stated, I get why religion itself in theocracies is a bad thing.... specifically it is the alliance between Church and State. But I really don't get some people's obsession with religion in the West, unless.... they think the separation of Church and State did not occur.

 

IFFFF that is the case, then that *would* explain an awful lot. (Ignorance of history usually does explain a lot)

 

A person who doesn't know the difference between life under a coercive state and life under a strictly limited state, is going to call for more government power whenever he feels threatened. The problem of course, for anyone who still hasn't noticed, is that making people feel threatened is the stock and trade of governments and their cronies.... because it shuts down the ability to think critically. Because this - critical thinking - is the only thing which keeps government power in-check. The .... only.... thing.

 

People who are too easily threatened, in this sense, are no longer able to make distinctions, to delineate differences and similarities.... everything becomes a broad, hostile generality. Their only means of engaging is through the use of blunt instruments i.e. an overblown legal system. When you and I see A, B and C, they see A, A and A. They are typically never specific about what it is about religion which justifies them spending so much time and energy in trying to refute other people's beliefs. Perhaps if they were, I'd have more to agree with them about.

 

People in Iran are threatened with force if they do not believe or accept certain 'truths'. They can and are physically attacked, tortured and killed. This is coercive religion.

 

In the West, people are - apart from one major exception, which no-one in this thread has so far asked me to elaborate on - free to believe in all kinds of things but they have no state power to coerce their fellow human beings into those beliefs. You may not physically attack, torture or kill someone, in the USA, because of their world view. It is illegal!

 

That is a pretty fundamental distinction to make, right there.

 

So, if we define crime as violation of the NAP, then it is clear what harm can be done to a non-criminal in Iran, in the name of religion. The question is what harm can be done to a non-criminal in the USA, in the name of religion?

 

Well, I 'believe' in the "Golden Rule" do unto others as you would like then to do unto you....... think this is a major tenant in most civilized religions, and even Atheist organizations. I also believe Science is the new universal religion,(please don't shoot me for using this word) it also has major tenants, applies the scientific method, must be repeatable, observable, freely subject to peer review/change and scepticism is most highly valued with regard to hypotheses/ theory. However it also requires some faith first in the process, but also some assumptions in that all things can be measured,observable and weighed. Mathematical imaginary numbers although not real are useful in electronic applications for example.

 

Anyways believe I've bitten off more than I can chew, with reading and writing. am being lazy in my chores, -35 C and haven't filled up the wood bins. I blame Stefan with his youtubes and site. (; 

[Donnadogsoth]

An omnipotent being could convert all the diamonds in the world to glass and then sell a handful of diamonds himself that then would be worth way more than $20 bill.

Legally? There is no law against converting diamonds to glass anywhere in the world.

Immoral? He might argue, the super rich owners of diamonds were immoral in stealing their wealth from the working people, therefore it's morally right to take away from them what they have stolen.

 

I didn't ask about an omnipotent being's ability to perform alchemy, I asked if an omnipotent being could make a legal $20 bill.  So?  Can he?

[shirgall]

I didn't ask about an omnipotent being's ability to perform alchemy, I asked if an omnipotent being could make a legal $20 bill.  So?  Can he?

 

This is, of course, a trick question, since omnipotence as a capability is logically inconsistent.

[Thomasio]

I didn't ask about an omnipotent being's ability to perform alchemy, I asked if an omnipotent being could make a legal $20 bill.  So?  Can he?

 

He could say: "Let there be 20 bill for me", according to your belief he has done just that with the whole universe.

 

He could speak a few tons of gold into existence, just like he created the world.

 

He could offer someone who owns 40 bill to make him 50 years or so younger for half of his money.

 

He knows all the lottery numbers for all future, he could win all lotteries worldwide for a decade or two.

 

If you want him to do it without performing things that are impossible by the laws of physics scientists have firgured out:

 

He could point explorers to the right places of all the sunken treasures on the floor of the oceans for a fee.

 

He could draw the construction plans for a secure power plant that doesn't produce any pollution and sell it.

 

He could write the recipe for a medicine that kills all infectious deseases without negative side effects and sell it.

 

He could put a penny into a savings account at some bank and wait 1000 years.

[Des]

Please define "omnipotent being".  Can an omnipotent being make a legal $20 bill?

I estimate the concept of omnipotence to be a trick concept, which manipulators allow to be loosely defined, to maximise it's manipulative value (and I am not accusing anyone of conscious planned manipulation - I am just saying it is really handy to be able to say that a being can do whatever the manipulator says he can do, but will not do what the manipulator says he will not do [for example, will not decide to send believers to hell and unbelievers to heaven]).

 

The definition I have to work with, is "can do anything". If the being "can do anything except ..." then the being is kinda convenipotent.

 

To repeat a point I have made on other threads: If the being is less than omnipotent, then such being is equivalent to a space alien with advanced science - and I am not atheist wrt space aliens.

 

You give nice trick questions, and, though I get why some downvote you for them, I like this one. You wouldn't know if an omnipotent being had made a $20 bill, whether legal or otherwise, because you could not trust that the sense data that makes you perceive trhe $20 bill, has not been altered. If you thought you saw a state-owned machine produce the note, you would have to admit that this might be false sense data.

 

I don't know the answer to your question. If the omnipotent being directly controls the governor of the federal reserve to issue one extra $20 bill, is it legal? If the omnipotent being makes lawmakers pass a law that accidentally-printed extra notes are legal tender, and then makes the machinery spit out one "accidental" extra note - is it legal? If the omnipotent being makes an extra $20 bill appear on the floor in front of you - it might not be legal - but we would not know - because he may have made it exactly alike to one he "disappeared" from someone's wallet.

 

Now I know Descartes did not explain it as I explain it - but essentially the universe with an omnipotent being is the universe of Descartes' evil demon. We can in no way prove that we are not in that universe. Let's talk as though we are not, because then the talk makes sense.

[Donnadogsoth]

He could say: "Let there be 20 bill for me", according to your belief he has done just that with the whole universe.

 

He could speak a few tons of gold into existence, just like he created the world.

 

He could offer someone who owns 40 bill to make him 50 years or so younger for half of his money.

 

He knows all the lottery numbers for all future, he could win all lotteries worldwide for a decade or two.

 

If you want him to do it without performing things that are impossible by the laws of physics scientists have firgured out:

 

He could point explorers to the right places of all the sunken treasures on the floor of the oceans for a fee.

 

He could draw the construction plans for a secure power plant that doesn't produce any pollution and sell it.

 

He could write the recipe for a medicine that kills all infectious deseases without negative side effects and sell it.

 

He could put a penny into a savings account at some bank and wait 1000 years.

 

Those are all ways of earning or obtaining a $20 bill, except for the first one, which would be illegal by definition.

 

Omnipotence is a misleading word because of this.  Rather, God can do whatever can be done by God.  God has a lot of power--the most power--a maximum of power--in other words, but is not omnipotent, in the common sense of "able to do anything" for the reason just given.

The thing to realise is that “potency” doesn't mean “able to do the logically contradictory”. The notion that God should be able to “do anything” including the logically contradictory is a strawman set up by atheists. “Omnipotent” should be read as “having as much power as possible.”

 

If the omnipotent being directly controls the governor of the federal reserve to issue one extra $20 bill, is it legal?

 

Legal, but not directly created.

 

If the omnipotent being makes lawmakers pass a law that accidentally-printed extra notes are legal tender, and then makes the machinery spit out one "accidental" extra note - is it legal?

 

Legal, but not directly created.

 

If the omnipotent being makes an extra $20 bill appear on the floor in front of you - it might not be legal - but we would not know - because he may have made it exactly alike to one he "disappeared" from someone's wallet.

 

If it's exactly alike then it's the same bill, which was teleported.

 

Now I know Descartes did not explain it as I explain it - but essentially the universe with an omnipotent being is the universe of Descartes' evil demon. We can in no way prove that we are not in that universe. Let's talk as though we are not, because then the talk makes sense.

 

Demon or no, believing we are utterly deceived has no survival value. We may keep on the lookout for signs we are being less-than-utterly deceived, and strive to overcome that deception, but total deception is a futile consideration. We might as well doubt the existence of other people etc., which leads to sterile scepticism and solipsism.