|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Omnipotence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
Hi Hangdawg,
Hangdawg writes: All of the arguments against God that I have run into all have some hidden assumption in them about the nature of God or what is truly possible. Most I've seen recently tend to beg the question rather than argue directly, but your point is valid. Problem is, many apologists take the bait. The response is often a logic-fest based on different assumptions. If I don't buy the assumptions (which I don't), then the logic is worthless. I wish they would show a little humility and admit ignorance! Limiting omnipotence to 'what we can comprehend' is very dull compared to even my, admittedly limited imagination. Well, I’m glad you have an open mind to the notion of omnipotence; and that definition and understanding are very different things. Can you now just get all those apologists to stop making shit up!? Cheers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
Hi Mr Jack,
Mr Jack writes: Hawgdawg writes: Yes, but in doing so he ceases to be omnipotent. Can God make something so heavy he can’t lift it? Only by 'our' logic. I, too, can't comprehend a way round this problem; but there may be a way. This is why I see arguing around 'omniptence' is less than fruitful. Cheers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
Can God make something so heavy he can’t lift it? No, because there is no such thing as an object so heavy that God cannot lift it. Omnipotent means capable of doing any thing. Nonsense is nonsense (i.e., square circle), both to us and to God. If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
Hi General Nazort,
General Nazort writes: No, because there is no such thing as an object so heavy that God cannot lift it. Why not? Why is omnipotence restricted to our comprehension of logic? See why these arguments are silly!?
General Nazort writes: Nonsense is nonsense (i.e., square circle), both to us and to God. Nonsense is only nonsense to us; that's no reason to completely discount that it's not nonsense to something else. Yes, it's a pointless argument, but that's the point! Cheers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
Why not? Why is omnipotence restricted to our comprehension of logic? See why these arguments are silly!? Our logic is based on God's logic - we were created in his image, and logic is part of what that entails. If you say that our comprehension of logic is inadequate, then you destroy your own argument. You are using a logical argument to draw the conclusion that our logic is inadequate - see anything wrong with this? If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 751 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thanks for your reply.
Can you now just get all those apologists to stop making shit up!? Well, no, but maybe someday when I'm older and wiser, I'll write my own apologetics book and put'em all to shame. Have a good'un.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grace2u Inactive Member |
Hello,
Haven't read the other replys but heres mine: Being omnipotent by the Christian definition simply means that He is all powerfull as defined by His nature revealed through scripture. Since scripture teaches that God is rational, I would argue that He can do no thing that is irrational. Same with sin. Can God sin? Of course not. Even though He can "do all things" we know that this simply means He can do all things not violating His revealed nature. Can't sin, can't do something that is not rational since He is the standard of rationality, etc. "The moral rectitude of God must consist in a due respect to things that are objects of moral respect; that is, to intelligent beings capable of moral actions and relations. And therefore it must chiefly constist in giving due respect to that Being to whom most is due; for God is infinitely the most worthy of regard. The worthiness of others is as nothing to his; so that to him belongs all possible respect. To him belongs the whole of the respect that any intelligent being is capable of. To him belongs ALL the heart. Therefore, if moral rectitude of heart consists in paying the respect of the heart which is due, or which fitness and suitableness requires, fitness requirees infinitly the greatest regard to be paid to God; and the denying of supreme regard here would be a conduct infinitely the most unfit. Hence it will follow, that moral rectitude of the disposition, inclination, or affection of God CHEIEFLY consists in a regatd to HIMSELF, infinitely above his regard to all other beings; in other words, his holiness consists in this" J. Edwards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
grace2u writes:
What is the point of taking part in a debate if you don't read what other people say? Haven't read the other replys [sic] but heres [sic] mine: "It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Hangdawg13
In the second example, what makes sense on our scale of perception and experience doesn’t make sense with God. Furthermore there is a hidden assumption that God is bound by the universe which he created. There is no hidden assumption,I believe,concerning god being bound within the universe created by god. The large assumption is that it is men who say that he is not so bound,not because experience or logic dictate so,but that without this clause then their god becomes amenable to proper investigation through the actions he takes on the universe since his actions would leave a trace that we could {in princple} detect. That we have come farther in our knowledge of the world when we leave out the supernatural explanation {Which is no explanation at all}is a pattern that repeats itself throughout history.This pattern also reveals that as we investigate under proper methods and paying attention to the errors of human thought and emotion that less and less of the world remains attributable to god and more to a universe without purpose or need for justification to human needs for comfort. Here is an example of a everyday occurence that we can all relate to yet how many can answer correctly?
You look in a mirror, and let's say you part your hair on the right side. You look in the mirror, and your image has its hair parted on the left side, so the image is left-to-right mixed up. But it's not top-to-bottom mixed up, because the top of the head of the image is there at the top, and the feet are down at the bottom. The question is: how does the mirror know to get the left and right mixed up, but not the up and down? ``A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict betweenreality and your feeling of what reality should be like.'' - Richard Feynman Later dawg. "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." --Don Hirschberg
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
sidelined writes: You look in a mirror, and let's say you part your hair on the right side. You look in the mirror, and your image has its hair parted on the left side, so the image is left-to-right mixed up. But it's not top-to-bottom mixed up, because the top of the head of the image is there at the top, and the feet are down at the bottom. The question is: how does the mirror know to get the left and right mixed up, but not the up and down? A mirror doesn't reverse left and right. If you point to the right in front of a mirror, your mirror-image points to the right as well (from your point of view). What a mirror does is reverse front and back. If you hold a piece of paper in front of a mirror, the mirror shows you the back of the paper. When you look at the paper directly, you only see the front. If there is text on the paper and you turn it around, you will see the mirror-image of the text, running from right to left. But contrary to what is commonly thought, it isn't the mirror that switched left and right, you did, when you turned the paper. You can easily demonstrate this without a mirror, if you print the text on an overhead sheet instead of a paper. If you hold it with the text facing you, the first word of the text is on the left. After you turn it, you can see that the same word is now on the right. In the same way the leftmost character of each word ends up on the right of it. Likewise with the leftmost smudge of ink in each letter. That is why the whole text is reversed to its so-called 'mirror-image', even though no mirror was involved. All a mirror does is show you what you would see if you could look through an opaque piece of paper. As an afterthought: you can make a mirror 'mix up' up and down by turning the paper around its horizontal axis instead of its vertical axis. The topmost line then becomes the bottom line and vice versa. The leftmost and rightmost words stay that way. {edited to correct "the the" and to make a sentence run a bit smoother} This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 11-05-2004 08:56 AM "It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Perhaps God has already made a square circle but we can't see it. Kinda like those extra dimensions that the mathematics of string theory predict.
Gravity, not just a good idea...It's the Law!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 751 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thanks for your reply.
There is no hidden assumption... You're ignoring the point in order to repeat your belief that beliefs are worthless. Just because there have been many superstitions that have held people back does not mean that all beliefs are wrong or bad. You cannot prove that my belief in God is a bad thing simply because another man's belief in monsters under his bed caused him to have bed wetting problems till he was 12. You cannot logically prove or disprove God because all attempts to do so are based on unproven assumptions. The atheist usually ASSUMES the worst. The believer trusts in the written and spoken word of God and personal revelation which he ASSUMES to be true. Both have very limited knowledge and understanding so it is pointless. The atheist that claims he can prove rationally that there is no God is flat out wrong. All arguments about what God could or should do or be if he existed are completely pointless because all are based on unprovable assumptions.
``A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality should be like.'' This helps me prove my point actually. Whatever paradoxes that we think should exist if God existed may simply be due to our incorrect feelings of what reality should be. Good God and an evil world... thats a paradox, but it doesn't disprove God's existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/...g/RS01-12-unicorn-debates.html
You should read that article. If you can't prove the existence of an immaterial pink unicorn, then why not believe in it? The atheist position ain't about proving the non-existence of god. It is about saying that it's kinda silly to believe in something that has no evidence for its existence. Now, tell me what the difference between god and the immaterial pink unicorn is. Hate world. Revenge soon!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
HangDawg sez,
quote:Well, okay, but the burden of proof is on the believer. Why believe in the existence of God if we can't assume there'd be a noticeable difference between a universe with a God and one without? For instance, it can't be gainsaid that if evil didn't exist, you'd have a much better argument against us atheists that there's a loving, all-powerful God looking out for us. But evil does exist, the innocent do suffer, and you still believe in God. By telling us that we can't make any assumptions about what a God-less universe would look like, you're effectively giving up the right to tell us why we should believe we're in a God-ful one. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 751 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thanks for your reply.
You should read that article. Read it.
If you can't prove the existence of an immaterial pink unicorn, then why not believe in it? No one has ever told me that the immaterial pink unicorn exists and that he appeared to them and spoke to them.
The atheist position ain't about proving the non-existence of god. But when a believer argues for God based on certain assumptions, the atheist argues against the existence of God on certain assumptions as well. This is a meaningless exercise of wit. I've heard a few atheists on here say, "The Christian God as you describe Him could not exist because..." So, yes, atheists DO argue against the existence of God and YES I do realize that the burden of proof lies on the one claiming the positive.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024