|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazarus The Resurected Crew
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:39 pm
Exark There is a simple answer to this: We do not know. It comes down to a simple statement: God created everything, we cannot put features to God because we cannot comprehend him. Simple In short, God can do whatever he wants but you hae put features on God. Benevolence and Omnipotence be3ing two readily availible exanmples
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:42 am
rmcdra But here's the thing you're not asking God for an answer, your asking people that believe in God for an answer and they cannot give any answer without saying something false. No. Here is the thing. You're assuming that anyone who believes in God, when I ask them a question about their God, is going to say something false. I also can't ask a God I don't believe in, questions about himself. That'd be like asking the Tooth Fairy where she gets all the money to give little kids. You'd have to go the people who believe in that God, because, as far as I'm concerned, an omnipotent being wouldn't waste his time answering every little question that came his way. He would just hand you the knowledge, if he thought you could handle it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:55 am
Exark There is a simple answer to this: We do not know. It comes down to a simple statement: God created everything, we cannot put features to God because we cannot comprehend him. Simple In short, God can do whatever he wants And yet you, who just said " we cannot put features to God because we cannot comprehend him" also said "God can do whatever he wants." Do you realize that you've placed two features on God? You said he is beyond our comprehension, and he can do whatever he wants. If God is beyond our comprehension how can you comprehend the concept of God in order to believe in him? How can you even comprehend that God is incomprehensible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:58 am
Lazarus The Resurected Kimihiro_Watanuki rmcdra Lazarus The Resurected rmcdra You know, your argument sounds very familiar kinda like. "The barber cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair." Answer me this. Who cuts the barber's hair? Another barber. why do you ask? The point is from a theistic view point, the only answer to the OP is "I don't know". The OP to theists is akin to asking someone to simultaneously measure the precise position and velocity of a microscopic particle with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty. And an omnipotent being WOULDN'T be able to do this kind of thing? As far as the barber goes, that has more to do with Creationism. The first barber (God) cuts the hair (creates) everyone who does not cut their own hair (the universe). So who cuts his hair? Either he must cut his own (Create himself, an impossibility), or get his hair cut by another barber. Then we get into infinite regression. Another barber would have to cut that barber's hair, and so on. The only way to stop this chain would be to have a barber, that can cut his own hair (A God that can create himself, which is impossible.) unless said other barber happened to be man. a much as that might seem to be anther infinite regression but it isn't it is quite finite. God created amn in His image and then man created a god in his own. That make no sense at all unless you exclude reality in general. You cannot create something, and then have it create you. An effect cannot create it's cause. Either we created the idea of God, or God created the idea of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:28 pm
Kimihiro_Watanuki mazuac In your first post you said an omnipotent being could create a square circle. That is impossible. The entire point of being omnipotent is to be able to do the impossible. I also included that in my post. Not having the power to do the impossible means having a limit. God is limited by it's inability to do the impossible. So, again, God can have all the power there is to have, but cannot be all powerful. mazuac Make sense? The fact that God can not "create" a square-triangle is because, by definition, there is no way for there to be a 3-sided-4sided thing. Correction: Basic psychology tells us there is no way we could perceive such a thing. Science tells us that there is no evidence of such a thing existing. This does not mean it is impossible to create. Even if it WAS impossible to create, because God cannot create it, he is limited by his inability to create it, and thus, no omnipotent. mazuac Your using omnipotence as a major theme here. So your basically asking, is God powerful enough to create a rock that he would not be powerful enough to lift. (Like I said before). But, also, again, like I said before you are changing the definition of powerful (because we ARE using omnipotence as the main factor). First you use powerful in a supernatural manner, then powerful in a natural, physical sense. Those two type of powerful have different definitions, and render the question invalid because it's a fallacy of logic. I'm using powerful in the sense of having power. The kind of power is irrelevant when we refer to a being that is all powerful. mazuac Also, here is something my friend Sarcastic_Angel has said... Quote: You are putting limits on God. You are giving God a physical form with which he would lift the rock, when our God is not contained in a physical form. And I know what you're thinking, what about Jesus, but I have an aswer to that. Actually, that doesn't concern me. What concerns me is you make the claim that God has no physical form or is not contained in one, and yet, fail to bother backing that statement up. How does one know God is contained in a physical form? mazuac Quote: Basically the answer I have to the paradox is this. God, by sending Jesus to earth in a physical form, created rocks that Jesus' body could not lift. Yet God could still lift the stone. God both created a stone to heavy for him to lift (since all 3 are one) yet could still lift the rock (as the Father) that he could not lift. If we're going to argue the idea of the trinity, let me state simply: A being cannot exist in two places or two things at the same time. This is why I find the trinity a complete fallacy. You cannot have three separate beings sharing the same consciousness and different bodies. For God to be one being, he has to be one consciousness, in one body. As the answer to your first part. Yes, an omnipotent being can do the impossible. As in, turning water into gold, turning something that died back to something that is alive. Or, making the Sun vanish, as if it never existed.
Creating a square with three sides does not disprove omnipotence. That is just an incredibly poor argument. God can do the impossible. And I find it humorous that I, a Christian, finds no problem with the fact that God, an omnipotent being, can't procure a triangular-square. And yet you, an Atheist (or at least that's what it seems) has a major problem with God not being able to produce a square-triangle. It may seem that he is not omnipotent to you. Unfortunately, from a logical standpoint, that is not the case.
Answered the second portion of your argument above. I would like to add, however, you create a no-win situation by asserting that an omnipotent being must be able to create the logically impossible. Technically, water into gold is logically possible. Even from a naturalistic view, I suppose (though this is a stretch of imagination) you could say that a quantum-whatever caused water to transform in gold. Just an example, but a poor one to demonstrate my point.
Answer 3. Correction, you must distinguish the type of power, even though we speak of "Power" in general. You make the definitions go from physical to create power. So, in all honesty, you argument IS invalid due to the fact that you change the definitions of POWER throughout your argument.
Answer 4. What concerns me is that you seem to have skipped what Sarcastic_Angel says after she makes that statement. You just chose cafeteria criticism.
Answer 5. Not necessarily. Because, technically, you are operating by mortal, finite standards. The Trinity is possible for an omnipotent being. An example of the trinity I once heard of is a triangle is God, and the three points are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three essence in one person.
Furthermore, yes, the Trinity is hard to understand. Even I sometimes have comprehension problems of the Trinity. But, to be perfectly honest, after reading up on it and doing some research, it makes absolutely perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:44 am
Kimihiro_Watanuki Lazarus The Resurected Kimihiro_Watanuki rmcdra Lazarus The Resurected rmcdra You know, your argument sounds very familiar kinda like. "The barber cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair." Answer me this. Who cuts the barber's hair? Another barber. why do you ask? The point is from a theistic view point, the only answer to the OP is "I don't know". The OP to theists is akin to asking someone to simultaneously measure the precise position and velocity of a microscopic particle with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty. And an omnipotent being WOULDN'T be able to do this kind of thing? As far as the barber goes, that has more to do with Creationism. The first barber (God) cuts the hair (creates) everyone who does not cut their own hair (the universe). So who cuts his hair? Either he must cut his own (Create himself, an impossibility), or get his hair cut by another barber. Then we get into infinite regression. Another barber would have to cut that barber's hair, and so on. The only way to stop this chain would be to have a barber, that can cut his own hair (A God that can create himself, which is impossible.) unless said other barber happened to be man. a much as that might seem to be anther infinite regression but it isn't it is quite finite. God created amn in His image and then man created a god in his own. That make no sense at all unless you exclude reality in general. You cannot create something, and then have it create you. An effect cannot create it's cause. Either we created the idea of God, or God created the idea of us. man came into existence by whatever means, then man created all of his own images of god. all of these images of god were said to have created man (or at least one deity in the pantheon.). So acording to the religionists God created us. according to me. (and other Satanists, i won't speak for all of us though) we create our own gods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazarus The Resurected Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:43 pm
Lazarus The Resurected Kimihiro_Watanuki Lazarus The Resurected Kimihiro_Watanuki rmcdra The point is from a theistic view point, the only answer to the OP is "I don't know". The OP to theists is akin to asking someone to simultaneously measure the precise position and velocity of a microscopic particle with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty. And an omnipotent being WOULDN'T be able to do this kind of thing? As far as the barber goes, that has more to do with Creationism. The first barber (God) cuts the hair (creates) everyone who does not cut their own hair (the universe). So who cuts his hair? Either he must cut his own (Create himself, an impossibility), or get his hair cut by another barber. Then we get into infinite regression. Another barber would have to cut that barber's hair, and so on. The only way to stop this chain would be to have a barber, that can cut his own hair (A God that can create himself, which is impossible.) unless said other barber happened to be man. a much as that might seem to be anther infinite regression but it isn't it is quite finite. God created amn in His image and then man created a god in his own. That make no sense at all unless you exclude reality in general. You cannot create something, and then have it create you. An effect cannot create it's cause. Either we created the idea of God, or God created the idea of us. man came into existence by whatever means, then man created all of his own images of god. all of these images of god were said to have created man (or at least one deity in the pantheon.). So acording to the religionists God created us. according to me. (and other Satanists, i won't speak for all of us though) we create our own gods. But how do you know which one really exists as a sentient being? The god who created us, or the god we created? Either way, this entire statement is irrelevant to what I posted. You can not have something that is a cause, become and effect of it's own effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:07 pm
it's still a chicken v. egg ******** question anyway. You took the literal definition rather than the implied definition and proceeded to post a stupid question that you thought was a witty so you could watch. the Christians trip over themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazarus The Resurected Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:51 am
Lazarus The Resurected it's still a chicken v. egg ******** question anyway. You took the literal definition rather than the implied definition and proceeded to post a stupid question that you thought was a witty so you could watch. the Christians trip over themselves. Thank you. I'm glad someone else realized this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:23 am
rmcdra Lazarus The Resurected it's still a chicken v. egg ******** question anyway. You took the literal definition rather than the implied definition and proceeded to post a stupid question that you thought was a witty so you could watch. the Christians trip over themselves. Thank you. I'm glad someone else realized this. Not a problem. the worst part is that it's not even an original question. People have been asking that of religionists for years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazarus The Resurected Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:49 am
Lazarus The Resurected it's still a chicken v. egg ******** question anyway. You took the literal definition rather than the implied definition and proceeded to post a stupid question that you thought was a witty so you could watch. the Christians trip over themselves. Because there's no way I could have actually wanted an actual discussion to form or anything. Oh no. No one wants that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:17 pm
Lazarus The Resurected rmcdra Lazarus The Resurected it's still a chicken v. egg ******** question anyway. You took the literal definition rather than the implied definition and proceeded to post a stupid question that you thought was a witty so you could watch. the Christians trip over themselves. Thank you. I'm glad someone else realized this. Not a problem. the worst part is that it's not even an original question. People have been asking that of religionists for years. Agreed. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:27 pm
One answer you're missing:
"I don't know."
I'm neither Omniscient nor make any claim to be. I am far from able to make any claim on understanding God or his ability, and as such, feel no reason to do so. Anyone who feels they can, is lying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:21 pm
Kimihiro_Watanuki Lazarus The Resurected it's still a chicken v. egg ******** question anyway. You took the literal definition rather than the implied definition and proceeded to post a stupid question that you thought was a witty so you could watch. the Christians trip over themselves. Because there's no way I could have actually wanted an actual discussion to form or anything. Oh no. No one wants that. Well ask a question that deserves an actual discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazarus The Resurected Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:56 pm
Lazarus The Resurected Kimihiro_Watanuki Lazarus The Resurected it's still a chicken v. egg ******** question anyway. You took the literal definition rather than the implied definition and proceeded to post a stupid question that you thought was a witty so you could watch. the Christians trip over themselves. Because there's no way I could have actually wanted an actual discussion to form or anything. Oh no. No one wants that. Well ask a question that deserves an actual discussion. If you don't want to discuss the topic, don't post in it. Now stop derailing the thread and go about your business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
