|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:16 pm
John Calvin Stxitxchxes I'll sum all that hot air up in one line: "This is all hypothetical, we've got to prove G-d's omnipotence or disprove it." Which is great, except that it's assumed. One does not necessarily have to prove or disprove God's omnipotency. It just needs to be defined. You presume to define G-d?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:40 pm
Stxitxchxes John Calvin Stxitxchxes I'll sum all that hot air up in one line: "This is all hypothetical, we've got to prove G-d's omnipotence or disprove it." Which is great, except that it's assumed. One does not necessarily have to prove or disprove God's omnipotency. It just needs to be defined. You presume to define G-d? Oooooooooh John, I love ya man, but Stitxchxes just gave you a Theological b***h slap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:57 pm
xd You know, I read both segments of this debate, and all I can really say is that my train of thought just disappeared in a flash of Pascal's Wager.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:18 am
Cougar Draven xd You know, I read both segments of this debate, and all I can really say is that my train of thought just disappeared in a flash of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is worthless when you have more than 2 options. It's based on if your options are: 1. Believe in the Christian G-d 2. Do not believe in the Christian G-d You start tossing in other religions, and Pascal's Wager becomes worthless. That's because if you believe in other religions, the dichtonomy presented by it is no longer valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:49 pm
RoseRose Cougar Draven xd You know, I read both segments of this debate, and all I can really say is that my train of thought just disappeared in a flash of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is worthless when you have more than 2 options. It's based on if your options are: 1. Believe in the Christian G-d 2. Do not believe in the Christian G-d You start tossing in other religions, and Pascal's Wager becomes worthless. That's because if you believe in other religions, the dichtonomy presented by it is no longer valid. It also means that In order to be on the winning side of the wager one has to believe in ALL religions....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:11 pm
Stxitxchxes You presume to define G-d? Not God. Simply His attributes. Nevertheless, to say what attributes God possesses or does not possess is already defining who God is in a finite manner. Even your definition of omnipotence is defining who God is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:13 pm
Rookherst[KOS] Oooooooooh John, I love ya man, but Stitxchxes just gave you a Theological b***h slap There's enough of that to go around for all of us. razz We're all defining who God is. The question is, Does it stray away from the Biblical teaching? If so, then that's where we need to back away, lest we fall into idolatry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:19 pm
Rookherst[KOS] RoseRose Cougar Draven xd You know, I read both segments of this debate, and all I can really say is that my train of thought just disappeared in a flash of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is worthless when you have more than 2 options. It's based on if your options are: 1. Believe in the Christian G-d 2. Do not believe in the Christian G-d You start tossing in other religions, and Pascal's Wager becomes worthless. That's because if you believe in other religions, the dichtonomy presented by it is no longer valid. It also means that In order to be on the winning side of the wager one has to believe in ALL religions.... Which can often be mutually contradictory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:09 pm
John Calvin Rookherst[KOS] Oooooooooh John, I love ya man, but Stitxchxes just gave you a Theological b***h slap There's enough of that to go around for all of us. razz We're all defining who God is. The question is, Does it stray away from the Biblical teaching? If so, then that's where we need to back away, lest we fall into idolatry. And this is why You see my (often) use Negative Theology. The only thing I may Be Presumtious enough to define is what god Is NOT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:29 pm
what would be the general theistic response to the question:
"can god create a rock he cannot lift?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:03 am
Belial750 what would be the general theistic response to the question: "can god create a rock he cannot lift?" I suppose that would depend on how the theist in general defines Omnipotence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:39 pm
hmm. wouldn't that also deal with all-powerful?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:20 am
Yes...That's what Omnipotence means...
But it depends on how it's defined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:37 pm
oh ah, i had forgotten, dur smile
sorry about that... all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving ... yeah...
anyhoo... ha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:31 pm
I believe I have solved the conundrum of the "Square Circle" with a simple solution. In the english language one need simply look up the slang definition of a "square" to see that it is synonymous with lame, boring or uncool. simply design a circle meeting such parameters and the paradox is solved. I apologize if that wasn't humorus but it proves the point of how god can indeed make a square circle by simply redefining what one is in relation to the other.
There are indeed a great many realtionships in mathematics (as well as Physics and other areas) where infinity and the finite are directly related to one another especially concerning relations of surface area and volume of a 3-D shape. so simply because something is infinite in one respect does not mean it is infinte in all respects. god may indeed be unlimited in his power, knowledge and attributes which we can comprehend, but he may be limited in areas unknown to us. I should say that it is fairly obvious that God is omnipotent as he did make a reality out of nothingness and can likewise destroy it if he saw fit. As is his Omnisceince (might have misspelled that) or all-knowing-ness since one is never truly out of sight or mind. I trust that God can indeed solve many of the "paradoxes" provided by us petty mortals. What truly concerns me are the paradoxes God creates for himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Rookherst[KOS]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/1c/32/2b1f6af436321c_flip.png?t=1193918574_6.00_11)
