|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 18, 2019 11:20:49 GMT
Mind bending question? It falls in with bizarre what ifs that would never happen. I feel like it is supposed to be seen as deep or thought provoking, but it's really just nonsense. Describe it how you want, but the fact that it’s unanswerable just goes to show how incongruent the position is on such a thing; it’s like, “I believe strongly in God but it’s not subject to the ability to be explained by real-world applications just like everything else. But..but it exists!!” Has it occurred to you that the trouble might be on your end?
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jun 18, 2019 11:22:17 GMT
Describe it how you want, but the fact that it’s unanswerable just goes to show how incongruent the position is on such a thing; it’s like, “I believe strongly in God but it’s not subject to the ability to be explained by real-world applications just like everything else. But..but it exists!!” Has it occurred to you that the trouble might be on your end? Some folks don't get that some believers don't feel the need to prove it or make up tests for God.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 18, 2019 11:45:59 GMT
So you presumed to know what I thought about something again. Has that ever worked in your favor? Since you will probably say the wrong thing the answer is no, it has never worked in your favor. I don’t care if God is omnipotent. Now tell me why you don’t believe that clear and concise statement. More of your confused blather non-Cool, which only endorses what I have previously commented to you about your approach. You have been arrogant and presumptuous enough to assume that others wern't going to, or shouldn't challenge your comment on an open discussion thread.
You made the statement, so if you don't want 'us' to assume that God isn't omnipotent and someone like yourself is supposed to be well versed in this subject, tell us why this is, as opposed to the OP's subject.
The OP would have to explain why the question is mandatory to defining omnipotence. I’m giving the OP the benefit of doubt. God can’t do what the question asks. Now what? |
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jun 18, 2019 13:14:20 GMT
More of your confused blather non-Cool, which only endorses what I have previously commented to you about your approach. You have been arrogant and presumptuous enough to assume that others wern't going to, or shouldn't challenge your comment on an open discussion thread.
You made the statement, so if you don't want 'us' to assume that God isn't omnipotent and someone like yourself is supposed to be well versed in this subject, tell us why this is, as opposed to the OP's subject.
The OP would have to explain why the question is mandatory to defining omnipotence. I’m giving the OP the benefit of doubt. God can’t do what the question asks. Now what? I usually stay out of slugfests, but since I'm invoked, I feel compelled to give my answer.
When it comes to defining anything, including omnipotence, I think every question about a term is mandatory.
The meaning of the latin word omni means "all, every, the whole, of every kind,". While potence is "power or strength". In other words "All powerful". It is also how I was raised to view God, so that's my definition of the word.
But I didn't pose the question to convince or deconvert anyone. I posed them because I find the question interesting and are interested in other peoples opinions on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 18, 2019 13:19:22 GMT
The OP would have to explain why the question is mandatory to defining omnipotence. I’m giving the OP the benefit of doubt. God can’t do what the question asks. Now what? I usually stay out of slugfests, but since I'm invoked, I feel compelled to give my answer.
When it comes to defining anything, including omnipotence, I think every question about a term is mandatory.
The meaning of the latin word omni means "all, every, the whole, of every kind,". While potence is "power or strength". In other words "All powerful". It is also how I was raised to view God, so that's my definition of the word.
But I didn't pose the question to convince or deconvert anyone. I posed them because I find the question interesting and are interested in other peoples opinions on the matter.
[which is perfectly fine. Others clearly do not have your intent. My argument is if you statement defines omnipotence then God is not omnipotent. It’s a simple, direct, and competent answer unless someone can explain why it isn’t. You are not required to and TC is not capable of providing the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jun 18, 2019 15:27:33 GMT
fire fight on aisle nine
documenting cultures of death
is almost
as exciting as
observing doctor mengele
pick and choose
his special needs kids
from the exit lines
off the railway cattle cars
germany used
to shuffle around those
they deemed
too hot to handle.
so here i sit
like a roman candle
doing my sworn duty
to gods and countries
on the pretense that
for each and every rising scandal
they'll be someone like me
willing to dangle
off the edge of a sobriety
being pawned off as high society
when all along
we've been castrating each other
to achieve a papered parity
that everyone knows
will never fly
as long as rights are based on lies
regurgitated by
those very same patriots
who cry
every time the stock market
takes a dive.
there's a fire fight on aisle nine
here at costco
and
someone had to
walk over a dead body
to get
their slice of key lime pie.
sjw 06/18/19 inspired at this very moment in time by the sub categories needed in the overall documentation process.
from the 'blitzkrieg series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 18, 2019 19:09:18 GMT
The problem of contradiction in the Bible is certainly made much easier if one assumes a changeable deity lol! Of course one contradiction to your view is that your alleged God, as I have said, explicitly says the opposite. But maybe when God says He "does not change" in Malachi he actually meant the opposite? Or, come to that, when Hebrews assures us [13:8] that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." It is just bad inspiration? Or when James [1:7] refers to the "Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change..." it is mistaken? One can see how the objective reader might be excused in taking a view after what is said, over and over. But, once again: I don't have an investment, so I am happy to go along with your preference here. So be it. You worship a changeable deity. The question of course is whether something which is changeable is necessarily reliable. But I leave that to you. I'm not surprised that you're confused by the present tense in English since it is so rarely used. It is rarely used because it is usually stating the obvious, "I run." It is used in elementary education for beginning readers. "See the dog. See Spot. See the dog run. See spot run. Look Mommy, I run with Spot." When the present tense is used later in life it is a variation of the simple present such as can state something less obvious. "You aren't running (anymore)." "Yes I am running." (progressive present) "You aren't chopping (correctly)." "Yes I do chop." (emphatic present) "I do change" is the emphatic present tense. "I do not change" is the same tense expressing a negative. Unless otherwise specified the present tense only applies to the moment or existing conditions in the context. I understand how embarrassing it must be for a person who lives in England to flunk English, but you are an atheist after all and those people have never done well in any subject. Actually that verse in its context does go on to specify what exactly does not change, but you didn't bother to read the verse in context. I fully realize that English is merely a translation of the original text of the Bible. I do believe however that the tenses can be translated with adequate detail. The problem of "contradiction" in the Bible proves once again to be the mistaken notions of bumbling atheists. So, all this condescending waffle and mild insulting aside, (and the fact you do not even address the other lines from scripture I gave, which are equally clear in what they say) when your god supposedly says "I do not change" and you say in fact He did, that is not a contradiction because God was only talking about the moment, not affirming an aspect of His eternal nature? Presumably then, when the deity says "I am" then this means He won't necessarily be entirely Himself tomorrow? Or, when something supposedly perfect changes, it will still remain so? Lol. Got it. Special pleading noted. Incidentally it is not only a poor old English atheist who in your view flunks English in this instance. A quick Google reveals the notion of an unchanging god is common among Christian commentators and proselytizers, whereas the assertion that your preferred deity is changeable is much harder to find. This does not make them necessarily right of course, just you more likely to be wrong. As for myself, once again, I have no investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 18, 2019 21:35:10 GMT
Has it occurred to you that the trouble might be on your end? Some folks don't get that some believers don't feel the need to prove it or make up tests for God. ...and that is why some folks think that other folks live in a 'fool's paradise'. The bigger question is whether it matters? I have always allowed others the right to live like that as long as it doesn't affect me. I think that is a fair deal. If I see JWs or Mormans in the street I walk past as to stop and argue with them would be exactly what they are doing.(It is a different matter if they trespass on my property for obvious reasons) Problem is when some folks impose those views on others in a way that becomes morally practically or politically unacceptable. We are all on this Board to discuss this these things. It also pisses me off when certain posters claim that because the heading says RFS, that the discussing must be in favour of those concepts. In other words they are claiming special pleading and entitlements for their particular beliefs. This also follows through to the members of communities who claim special rights for their religion and religious beliefs. My mantra is that I have the right to have freedom FROM religion. I willingly come here to discuss these matters because it interests me and it is important for me to maintain my lifestyle free from the deleterious effects of religion. I guess I am spying! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 18, 2019 21:49:51 GMT
More of your confused blather non-Cool, which only endorses what I have previously commented to you about your approach. You have been arrogant and presumptuous enough to assume that others wern't going to, or shouldn't challenge your comment on an open discussion thread.
You made the statement, so if you don't want 'us' to assume that God isn't omnipotent and someone like yourself is supposed to be well versed in this subject, tell us why this is, as opposed to the OP's subject.
The OP would have to explain why the question is mandatory to defining omnipotence. I’m giving the OP the benefit of doubt. God can’t do what the question asks. Now what? Why is it mandatory to not define God as omnipotent? That was your argument which you have evaded as usual.
You would also have to define God, prove this God and include in that answer a logical and viable explanation of why God isn't omnipotent? Since you won't be able, I think 'any' discussion and notion about what God is as a supreme separate entity\being is a waste of time, because the approach is naive and ignorant and is going to be misguided, just like religion has done to mankind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 18, 2019 21:56:21 GMT
I usually stay out of slugfests, but since I'm invoked, I feel compelled to give my answer.
When it comes to defining anything, including omnipotence, I think every question about a term is mandatory.
The meaning of the latin word omni means "all, every, the whole, of every kind,". While potence is "power or strength". In other words "All powerful". It is also how I was raised to view God, so that's my definition of the word.
But I didn't pose the question to convince or deconvert anyone. I posed them because I find the question interesting and are interested in other peoples opinions on the matter.
[which is perfectly fine. Others clearly do not have your intent. My argument is if you statement defines omnipotence then God is not omnipotent. It’s a simple, direct, and competent answer unless someone can explain why it isn’t.
You are not required to and TC is not capable of providing the answer. Yes, YOU ARE required to provide an answer, because it is your question and perception that you are sharing. You don't get out of it that easy, just because you think what you believe is only "right". This is just more of your shifty arrogance in challenging the OP's query about God being omnipotent. You have claimed what God isn't, I want to know from your perspective why? If you make such a bold claim, then you must have an answer to back it up. If you can't answer, then its because you don't know. If you don't know, then the argument is rendered moot, because God would have to be defined and 'proven' as you, and even the OP, sees it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 18, 2019 22:18:06 GMT
I'm not surprised that you're confused by the present tense in English since it is so rarely used. It is rarely used because it is usually stating the obvious, "I run." It is used in elementary education for beginning readers. "See the dog. See Spot. See the dog run. See spot run. Look Mommy, I run with Spot." When the present tense is used later in life it is a variation of the simple present such as can state something less obvious. "You aren't running (anymore)." "Yes I am running." (progressive present) "You aren't chopping (correctly)." "Yes I do chop." (emphatic present) "I do change" is the emphatic present tense. "I do not change" is the same tense expressing a negative. Unless otherwise specified the present tense only applies to the moment or existing conditions in the context. I understand how embarrassing it must be for a person who lives in England to flunk English, but you are an atheist after all and those people have never done well in any subject. Actually that verse in its context does go on to specify what exactly does not change, but you didn't bother to read the verse in context. I fully realize that English is merely a translation of the original text of the Bible. I do believe however that the tenses can be translated with adequate detail. The problem of "contradiction" in the Bible proves once again to be the mistaken notions of bumbling atheists. So, all this condescending waffle and mild insulting aside, (and the fact you do not even address the other lines from scripture I gave, which are equally clear in what they say) when your god supposedly says "I do not change" and you say in fact He did, that is not a contradiction because God was only talking about the moment, not affirming an aspect of His eternal nature? Presumably then, when the deity says "I am" then this means He won't necessarily be entirely Himself tomorrow? Or, when something supposedly perfect changes, it will still remain so? Lol. Got it. Special pleading noted. Incidentally it is not only a poor old English atheist who in your view flunks English in this instance. A quick Google reveals the notion of an unchanging god is common among Christian commentators and proselytizers, whereas the assertion that your preferred deity is changeable is much harder to find. This does not make them necessarily right of course, just you more likely to be wrong. As for myself, once again, I have no investment. No, I have no investment. The question is about what an "omnipotent being" can or cannot do and whether that should truly be defined as omnipotence. You are the one who brought in the Bible. You obviously have more invested than think. What a sport you are though to pretend you're still confused by the present tense even after it has been perfectly explained to you. You should see now, people are so accustomed to there being more specific information either expressed or implied with the present tense an actual plain use of the present tense confuses them as it does you. Let's cut to the chase here though. Let's rephrase the question. Does omnipotence mean being able to perform "mutually exclusive" acts? Or "are any events mutually exclusive?" By "mutually exclusive" (What convenient terminology! Are you glad I'm here?) I mean things that rather obviously cannot be true at the same time. A brick cannot be red and blue at the same time. It can be partly red and partly blue, or it can be some altogether different color like purple, but it cannot be all red and all blue at one time. It can float or sink at different times. It cannot sink and float at the same time. Fulfilling the condition of being red excludes the possibility of being blue. Fulfilling the condition of sinking excludes the possibility of floating. That's what mutually exclusive events are. If you define "omnipotence" as being able to perform mutually exclusive feats, then few people would suggest any such "omnipotence" could exist. We might question the competence of anyone who thinks it could. That is a poor definition of "omnipotence" though, and for obvious reasons. If you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything at all that any agency anywhere can do then you have eliminated that crazy requirement to do mutually exclusive things and have a much more interesting question. Might a god be that sort of omnipotent? That is a much more intellectually honest question. Another lesson I have taught here time and time again is that arguments about god (and other things) usually turn out to be a difference in definitions, all of which are arbitrary. The argument here is not whether anyone or anything is omnipotent, the argument is over the definition of the term omnipotent. Because you fail to define the term you are doomed to talk past each other forever without getting anywhere. I have provided you a definition of "omnipotent" which is far more interesting to discuss than other definitions. You are trying to defeat me by forcing a foolish definition on me. If the internet is indeed replete with people who agree with you on omnipotence, that is because the internet is dominated by people who talk past each other forever because they do not understand English. I do not care how many people on the internet think a god cannot change. It all depends on what you mean by "change" doesn't it? That's why civilized people like me always define terms by mutual agreement first before arguing anything. I hope you have more civilized things to do than blither incessantly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 18, 2019 23:18:30 GMT
So, all this condescending waffle and mild insulting aside, (and the fact you do not even address the other lines from scripture I gave, which are equally clear in what they say) when your god supposedly says "I do not change" and you say in fact He did, that is not a contradiction because God was only talking about the moment, not affirming an aspect of His eternal nature? Presumably then, when the deity says "I am" then this means He won't necessarily be entirely Himself tomorrow? Or, when something supposedly perfect changes, it will still remain so? Lol. Got it. Special pleading noted. Incidentally it is not only a poor old English atheist who in your view flunks English in this instance. A quick Google reveals the notion of an unchanging god is common among Christian commentators and proselytizers, whereas the assertion that your preferred deity is changeable is much harder to find. This does not make them necessarily right of course, just you more likely to be wrong. As for myself, once again, I have no investment. No, I have no investment. The question is about what an "omnipotent being" can or cannot do and whether that should truly be defined as omnipotence. You are the one who brought in the Bible. You obviously have more invested than think. What a sport you are though to pretend you're still confused by the present tense even after it has been perfectly explained to you. You should see now, people are so accustomed to there being more specific information either expressed or implied with the present tense an actual plain use of the present tense confuses them as it does you. Let's cut to the chase here though. Let's rephrase the question. Does omnipotence mean being able to perform "mutually exclusive" acts? Or "are any events mutually exclusive?" By "mutually exclusive" (What convenient terminology! Are you glad I'm here?) I mean things that rather obviously cannot be true at the same time. A brick cannot be red and blue at the same time. It can be partly red and partly blue, or it can be some altogether different color like purple, but it cannot be all red and all blue at one time. It can float or sink at different times. It cannot sink and float at the same time. Fulfilling the condition of being red excludes the possibility of being blue. Fulfilling the condition of sinking excludes the possibility of floating. That's what mutually exclusive events are. If you define "omnipotence" as being able to perform mutually exclusive feats, then few people would suggest any such "omnipotence" could exist. We might question the competence of anyone who thinks it could. That is a poor definition of "omnipotence" though, and for obvious reasons. If you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything at all that any agency anywhere can do then you have eliminated that crazy requirement to do mutually exclusive things and have a much more interesting question. Might a god be that sort of omnipotent? That is a much more intellectually honest question. Another lesson I have taught here time and time again is that arguments about god (and other things) usually turn out to be a difference in definitions, all of which are arbitrary. The argument here is not whether anyone or anything is omnipotent, the argument is over the definition of the term omnipotent. Because you fail to define the term you are doomed to talk past each other forever without getting anywhere. I have provided you a definition of "omnipotent" which is far more interesting to discuss than other definitions. You are trying to defeat me by forcing a foolish definition on me. If the internet is indeed replete with people who agree with you on omnipotence, that is because the internet is dominated by people who talk past each other forever because they do not understand English. I do not care how many people on the internet think a god cannot change. It all depends on what you mean by "change" doesn't it? That's why civilized people like me always define terms by mutual agreement first before arguing anything. I hope you have more civilized things to do than blither incessantly.
 
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 19, 2019 0:55:31 GMT
Mind bending question? It falls in with bizarre what ifs that would never happen. I feel like it is supposed to be seen as deep or thought provoking, but it's really just nonsense. Describe it how you want, but the fact that it’s unanswerable just goes to show how incongruent the position is on such a thing; it’s like, “I believe strongly in God but it’s not subject to the ability to be explained by real-world applications just like everything else. But..but it exists!!” How is it unanswerable?
I answered it.
The question itself is a worthless tautology, but it is pretty easily answered.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 19, 2019 1:02:27 GMT
The OP would have to explain why the question is mandatory to defining omnipotence. I’m giving the OP the benefit of doubt. God can’t do what the question asks. Now what? Why is it mandatory to not define God as omnipotent? That was your argument which you have evaded as usual.
You would also have to define God, prove this God and include in that answer a logical and viable explanation of why God isn't omnipotent? Since you won't be able, I think 'any' discussion and notion about what God is as a supreme separate entity\being is a waste of time, because the approach is naive and ignorant and is going to be misguided, just like religion has done to mankind.
It's not mandatory
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 19, 2019 1:20:10 GMT
Why is it mandatory to not define God as omnipotent? That was your argument which you have evaded as usual.
You would also have to define God, prove this God and include in that answer a logical and viable explanation of why God isn't omnipotent? Since you won't be able, I think 'any' discussion and notion about what God is as a supreme separate entity\being is a waste of time, because the approach is naive and ignorant and is going to be misguided, just like religion has done to mankind.
It's not mandatory It is if you want to be given some credence. Since it is obvious you are not prepared to explain your point about God not being omnipotent, then I guess you don't want want any credibility associated with you either. That goes hand in hand with religious notions about God anyway, so nothing new there regarding the misappropriated delusions they project.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 19, 2019 1:27:15 GMT
Describe it how you want, but the fact that it’s unanswerable just goes to show how incongruent the position is on such a thing; it’s like, “I believe strongly in God but it’s not subject to the ability to be explained by real-world applications just like everything else. But..but it exists!!” How is it unanswerable?
I answered it.
The question itself is a worthless tautology, but it is pretty easily answered.
Of course anything can be answered, it just depends on how it is answered and what essence and credibility the answer contains. Just because one was given, does not automatically give one a free pass to get it accepted as an absolute truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 19, 2019 1:32:00 GMT
How is it unanswerable?
I answered it.
The question itself is a worthless tautology, but it is pretty easily answered.
Of course anything can be answered, it just depends on how it is answered and what essence and credibility the answer contains. Just because one was given, does not automatically give one a free pass to get it accepted as an absolute truth. Cool. Critique my answer. I never said my answer was right, but the person that I responded to said the question was unanswerable (impled by theists), whether you agree with my answer or not the fact is that the question was answered.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 19, 2019 3:51:14 GMT
Of course anything can be answered, it just depends on how it is answered and what essence and credibility the answer contains. Just because one was given, does not automatically give one a free pass to get it accepted as an absolute truth. Cool. Critique my answer. I never said my answer was right, but the person that I responded to said the question was unanswerable (impled by theists), whether you agree with my answer or not the fact is that the question was answered. Of course anything can be answered, it just depends on how it is answered and what essence and credibility the answer contains. Just because one was given, does not automatically give one a free pass to get it accepted as an absolute truth. Cool. Critique my answer. I never said my answer was right, but the person that I responded to said the question was unanswerable (impled by theists), whether you agree with my answer or not the fact is that the question was answered. Catman and I both agree that any question that could be considered unanswerable should be answered with pictures of cats. OH!!!!! you mean THOSE kind of unanswerable questions...with religion and philosophy and shit! The answer is simple 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2019 4:29:48 GMT
No, I have no investment. The question is about what an "omnipotent being" can or cannot do and whether that should truly be defined as omnipotence. You are the one who brought in the Bible. You obviously have more invested than think. What a sport you are though to pretend you're still confused by the present tense even after it has been perfectly explained to you. You should see now, people are so accustomed to there being more specific information either expressed or implied with the present tense an actual plain use of the present tense confuses them as it does you. Let's cut to the chase here though. Let's rephrase the question. Does omnipotence mean being able to perform "mutually exclusive" acts? Or "are any events mutually exclusive?" By "mutually exclusive" (What convenient terminology! Are you glad I'm here?) I mean things that rather obviously cannot be true at the same time. A brick cannot be red and blue at the same time. It can be partly red and partly blue, or it can be some altogether different color like purple, but it cannot be all red and all blue at one time. It can float or sink at different times. It cannot sink and float at the same time. Fulfilling the condition of being red excludes the possibility of being blue. Fulfilling the condition of sinking excludes the possibility of floating. That's what mutually exclusive events are. If you define "omnipotence" as being able to perform mutually exclusive feats, then few people would suggest any such "omnipotence" could exist. We might question the competence of anyone who thinks it could. That is a poor definition of "omnipotence" though, and for obvious reasons. If you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything at all that any agency anywhere can do then you have eliminated that crazy requirement to do mutually exclusive things and have a much more interesting question. Might a god be that sort of omnipotent? That is a much more intellectually honest question. Another lesson I have taught here time and time again is that arguments about god (and other things) usually turn out to be a difference in definitions, all of which are arbitrary. The argument here is not whether anyone or anything is omnipotent, the argument is over the definition of the term omnipotent. Because you fail to define the term you are doomed to talk past each other forever without getting anywhere. I have provided you a definition of "omnipotent" which is far more interesting to discuss than other definitions. You are trying to defeat me by forcing a foolish definition on me. If the internet is indeed replete with people who agree with you on omnipotence, that is because the internet is dominated by people who talk past each other forever because they do not understand English. I do not care how many people on the internet think a god cannot change. It all depends on what you mean by "change" doesn't it? That's why civilized people like me always define terms by mutual agreement first before arguing anything. I hope you have more civilized things to do than blither incessantly.
Oh wait, since no god is going to be able to perform mutually exclusive events, do you realize what that means? It means there can be no all powerful god! I should go to press with this amazing revelation about the astounding intellectual acuity of atheism. Okay, just kidding, but if you think I am the one blithering incessantly, then I thought I would for a moment, just to show how it's done and really appears.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 19, 2019 8:51:47 GMT
Of course anything can be answered, it just depends on how it is answered and what essence and credibility the answer contains. Just because one was given, does not automatically give one a free pass to get it accepted as an absolute truth. Cool. Critique my answer. I never said my answer was right, but the person that I responded to said the question was unanswerable (impled by theists), whether you agree with my answer or not the fact is that the question was answered. Then the answer wasn't really an answer, just a response.
|
|
