|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:16:44 GMT
The real question seems to be, “If God can do anything, can he do what I want him to do?” Why the heck should he, though?  He’s not taking requests. That means prayers and praise are just to assuage his vanity. And taking requests was something He certainly has done before, this unchanging God. He wouldn’t want to take requests from those whose point is to slander billions and billions of innocent people. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 14:34:36 GMT
That means prayers and praise are just to assuage his vanity. And taking requests was something He certainly has done before, this unchanging God. He wouldn’t want to take requests from those whose point is to slander billions and billions of innocent people. Sorry to deflate you, but no one knows the mind of a purported God; He furthermore apparently works in mysterious ways, and some say that what He does in any case is by definition justified, even if to some it looks questionable.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:36:06 GMT
He wouldn’t want to take requests from those whose point is to slander billions and billions of innocent people. Sorry to deflate you, but no one knows the mind of God; He furthermore works in mysterious ways, and some say that what He does is by definition justified. Someone just hacked this guy’s account. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 14:38:09 GMT
Sorry to deflate you, but no one knows the mind of God; He furthermore works in mysterious ways, and some say that what He does is by definition justified. Someone just hacked this guy’s account. Thank you for a full rebuttal of my points. Others would just post nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:40:56 GMT
Flimflam has just proved everything I’ve ever said on the internet. Yay! |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:43:09 GMT
Merry Christmas!
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 14:43:09 GMT
Flimflam has just proved everything I’ve ever said on the internet. Yay! Was this when you were 'just posting information about an interesting religion?' Or just lately when you had a direct line to the mind of God?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:43:28 GMT
Merry Christmas!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 24, 2020 14:43:59 GMT
Innocent from what? Ones own delusion? —————- Innocent from mass slandering. The countless billions of innocent people who merely had thoughts you don’t like are innocent and undeserving of your endless malice towards them. There is no innocence within religion, except naivety and gullibility.
It is about beliefs that get projected and can and does affect others. The things a good Christian may do, one does not really need to hide behind Christianity to be deemed good, yet, many religious orders can use their belief of thought to oppress others and deem themselves superior over other beliefs. This is where the egoism and conflict arises.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:44:25 GMT
Happy New Year!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 24, 2020 14:48:54 GMT
That means prayers and praise are just to assuage his vanity. And taking requests was something He certainly has done before, this unchanging God. He wouldn’t want to take requests from those whose point is to slander billions and billions of innocent people. Why would those you deem slanderous be asking God anything to begin with?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:55:49 GMT
Happy Christmas Eve!!
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 24, 2020 20:12:22 GMT
Merry Kwanza!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 24, 2020 21:46:17 GMT
I didn't.. I'm not reading anything that isn't written in the title. The premise is that God can do anything. If you see something else, it is you who are reading things that aren't there. I see the thread title ' IF god can do anything can he make a mistake'; then I see from you that "the premise is that anything can be done." which is simply not the same premise. One is conditional, one is not. You can see how it looks if you repeatedly ignore the difference.. premise: A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn There is no difference between "If God can do anything..." and "assuming God can do anything..." "God can do anything" is the statement assumed to be true, as indicated by the conditional clause (ie, 'if'). The question is not merely "can God make a mistake;" it's "can God make a mistake if he can do anything." Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 24, 2020 21:50:56 GMT
That Krauss guy someone mentioned earlier is on record as saying that if anything is possible, it isn't serious science. Science also says that, anything that can happen will happen, given enough time. Great. Then let's rephrase the question to suit: If God can do anything that can be done, can he make a mistake? Given that no one truly knows the mind of anyone (except perhaps their own), why should God be an exception and how is that not special pleading? Have a good weekend, FF.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 23:44:47 GMT
I see the thread title ' IF god can do anything can he make a mistake'; then I see from you that "the premise is that anything can be done." which is simply not the same premise. One is conditional, one is not. You can see how it looks if you repeatedly ignore the difference.. premise: A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn There is no difference between "If God can do anything..." and "assuming God can do anything..." If only you had included any such conditional in your version of the premise which was, you remember, just the bald "that anything can be done [by God]." Not at all the same. But if now you wish to revise it, I can see why you might want to. As already said, a shame you missed that 'if' out of your version and did not make it a question. That indeed is the original premise - but I know that already since I have thrice had to remind you of it. But its not your version. Here's another example: 'If you understand these differences, can you get things right?' is not the same as 'you can understand these differences'. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 23:58:46 GMT
Science also says that, anything that can happen will happen, given enough time. Great. Then let's rephrase the question to suit: If God can do anything that can be done, can he make a mistake? The answer is still the same since it does alter the logic of only being able to do that which is logically coherent: that is, God can only do that which can be done (although I have already made a distinction between being able to make a mistake, and it ever happening given a perfect being, if you remember.) Just because one asserts a contrary view it does not make it true, no matter how much one wants it so. Since now at least once you said you agree, along with me, with the common 'Stanford' view about the necessary limits to omnipotence, I really don't know why you are continuing. Looks like we are just back with psychology and emotion. Because special pleading is when the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view. I am not sure of your logic here, or how it is applicable. From what you say about minds in general, God is not even an exception that ignores other inconvenient examples! He is however an entity which was specifically mentioned by SciFive so the observation was pertinent. Since mine is a direct quote from scripture (1 Cor 2:11) any matters of special pleading, if relevant, really ought to be laid at its door, not mine. And you. Thank you for playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 25, 2020 1:59:56 GMT
premise: A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn There is no difference between "If God can do anything..." and "assuming God can do anything..." If only you had included any such conditional in your version of the premise which was, you remember, just the bald "that anything can be done [by God]." Not at all the same. But if now you wish to revise it, I can see why you might want to. As already said, a shame you missed that 'if' out of your version and did not make it a question. That indeed is the original premise - but I know that already since I have thrice had to remind you of it. But its not your version. Here's another example: 'If you understand these differences, can you get things right?' is not the same as 'you can understand these differences'. Thank you. For the last time, it's not my premise. See thread title. And you forgot the "can" between "If you" and "understand these differences." I would say try again, but I've lost interest. So I'm getting off your smug little merry-go-round now. Bye!
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 26, 2020 13:00:33 GMT
If only you had included any such conditional in your version of the premise which was, you remember, just the bald "that anything can be done [by God]." Not at all the same. But if now you wish to revise it, I can see why you might want to. As already said, a shame you missed that 'if' out of your version and did not make it a question. That indeed is the original premise - but I know that already since I have thrice had to remind you of it. But its not your version. Here's another example: 'If you understand these differences, can you get things right?' is not the same as 'you can understand these differences'. Thank you. For the last time, it's not my premise. See thread title. And for the last time, by omitting any conditionals in a statement, one makes of it an absolute, thus changing it. But I am pleased that you agree with me that a completely omnipotent god is logically incoherent, which has always been the point, really. Emotion and psychology are still powerful things aren't they? Cheerio!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Dec 26, 2020 13:48:07 GMT
For the last time, it's not my premise. See thread title. And for the last time, by omitting any conditionals in a statement, one makes of it an absolute, thus changing it. But I am pleased that you agree with me that a completely omnipotent god is logically incoherent, which has always been the point, really. Emotion and psychology are still powerful things aren't they? Cheerio! Is this “God can’t make a mistake” even in the Bible?
|
|
