|
Post by Isapop on Dec 10, 2021 23:13:13 GMT
I'll just toss in this thought, for what (if anything) it's worth: "If God can make a rock that he can't lift, then he's not omnipotent, right?" "Only if he actually makes that rock. As long as he doesn't make that rock, he remains omnipotent." Ok, but the question isn't whether or not God can lift a rock that someone else made. Man, the lengths some people will go to to avoid simplicity. Who said that, anyway? "A rock that someone else made."? Who said someone else? There's no someone else in what I said. (Never mind.)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 10, 2021 23:22:18 GMT
Ok, but the question isn't whether or not God can lift a rock that someone else made. Man, the lengths some people will go to to avoid simplicity. Who said that, anyway? "A rock that someone else made."? Who said someone else? There's no someone else in what I said. The author of the quote said it: "As long as he doesn't make that rock..." (Okay.)
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 13, 2021 17:36:16 GMT
Oh, he can do it, but it doesn't make sense, unless god is insane. If you're okay with an insane god then have it. So now he can’t do it while making sense? You continue to ascribe limits to an entity that is presumed to have none. The rock argument does not discuss the limitations of deity, it discusses the definition of omnipotence, you have picked one definition and are applying it in a militant fashion, and failing to see that the whole point is that omnipotence might mean some thing other than just can.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 13, 2021 19:57:23 GMT
So now he can’t do it while making sense? You continue to ascribe limits to an entity that is presumed to have none. The rock argument does not discuss the limitations of deity, it discusses the definition of omnipotence, you have picked one definition and are applying it in a militant fashion, and failing to see that the whole point is that omnipotence might mean some thing other than just can. If the question is an argument, then it's rhetorical. Why would you demand I answer a rhetorical question? Let's back up a bit... So can God™ create a rock he cannot lift? I don't see why not. Seems easy enough. If god can do anything but he cannot life [sic] the rock, then he cant do anything. Premise. Conclusion.You don't see the problem there? Look, this is extremely and unnecessarily convoluted. If X can do anything, then there is nothing X can't do. If "can do anything" doesn't equal "omnipotence," then you're asking the wrong question.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 14, 2021 2:49:33 GMT
The rock argument does not discuss the limitations of deity, it discusses the definition of omnipotence, you have picked one definition and are applying it in a militant fashion, and failing to see that the whole point is that omnipotence might mean some thing other than just can. If the question is an argument, then it's rhetorical. Why would you demand I answer a rhetorical question? Let's back up a bit... So can God™ create a rock he cannot lift? I don't see why not. Seems easy enough. If god can do anything but he cannot life [sic] the rock, then he cant do anything. Premise. Conclusion.You don't see the problem there? Look, this is extremely and unnecessarily convoluted. If X can do anything, then there is nothing X can't do. If "can do anything" doesn't equal "omnipotence," then you're asking the wrong question. I'm not asking the wrong question, I am asking the question, you are talking about the question and starting with the answer that omnipotence can break established rules, but the whole point of the question is to question that. Have a little think about the idea of god, if god can do anything anything at all, then god can also break the rules it makes, and yet god is perfection, what does it say if god can break the rules it makes?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 3:18:36 GMT
If the question is an argument, then it's rhetorical. Why would you demand I answer a rhetorical question? Let's back up a bit... I don't see why not. Seems easy enough. Premise. Conclusion.You don't see the problem there? Look, this is extremely and unnecessarily convoluted. If X can do anything, then there is nothing X can't do. If "can do anything" doesn't equal "omnipotence," then you're asking the wrong question. I'm not asking the wrong question, I am asking the question, you are talking about the question and starting with the answer that omnipotence can break established rules, but the whole point of the question is to question that. The whole point of the question is to question what it presumes? Ok then, forget the rock. Apparently the question is simply whether or not God is omnipotent, and the answer to that depends on what it means to be omnipotent. Let's cut the crap. It's a loaded question because no matter how its answered, the conclusion is that God is not omnipotent and/or unable to do anything. So we can forget the premise, too, and never mind "the whole point of it" because it's not really asking anything at all, but rather making a statement that is not to be questioned. Glad to have that resolved. So now we're supposed to presume he's perfection, too? Why are you making this so complicated? Here it is again... feel free to sing along... If God can do anything, then the answer to any question that begins with "God can" is yes. My turn: What is the ability to do anything if not the ability to do anything? Perhaps you'd like to rephrase the question?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 5:29:33 GMT
If God created everything, then he created the human concept of to be and not to be. If God created everything, did he create A or B?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 5:48:51 GMT
If God created everything, did he create A or B? Yes, sir. Everything is everything, so as far as us limited mini-gods are concerned, everything is possible to the nth degree, therefore there are infinity possibilities. Next July A could become B and 2 + 2 could equal 5. We could also be repeating the same conservation we all had eons ago. Infinity makes possible those 2 million monkeys typing away for 2 million years and coming up with the play Hamlet. That was not an option. Maybe I wasn't clear: If God created everything, which did he create: A or B? If he created A, then he didn't create B, therefore he did not create everything. If he created B, then he didn't create A, therefore he did not create everything. And of course, all of this leads to God not creating anything at all. Because he doesn't exist. Theists pwned. Fun stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 6:18:33 GMT
That was not an option. Maybe I wasn't clear: If God created everything, which did he create: A or B? If he created A, then he didn't create B, therefore he did not create everything. If he created B, then he didn't create A, therefore he did not create everything. And of course, all of this leads to God not creating anything at all. Because he doesn't exist.Theists pwned. Fun stuff. That's assuming God is bothered with options. Not necessarily. Is the question "God can create a rock he cannot lift" a thing? No, it assumes he created everything: "If God created everything..." That's not really a question, but if it's a thing, then rest assured God didn't create it. After all, we just established that he doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 6:46:55 GMT
No, it assumes he created everything: "If God created everything..." That's not really a question, but if it's a thing, then rest assured God didn't create it. After all, we just established that he doesn't exist. It is: Is (verb) the statement (subject) "God can create a rock he cannot lift" is a thing (object)? The (subject) was a question a few minutes ago, but no matter. The song remains the same.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 7:01:13 GMT
The (subject) was a question a few minutes ago, but no matter. The song remains the same. Are you doing the ole song and dance to avoid the subject? Rhetorical question. Haha, but no. I answered the question you thought you asked before you actually asked it. And just for the record: Is the question "God can create a rock he cannot lift" a thing?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 8:00:53 GMT
Haha, but no. I answered the question you thought you asked before you actually asked it. And just for the record: Haha, but no. I answered the question you thought you asked before you actually asked it.
Where? But if so, you can copy and paste it here. Thanks. Actually, my question is a simple yes or no. Gladly... That's not really a question, but if it's a thing, then rest assured God didn't create it. After all, we just established that he doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 8:16:36 GMT
Gladly... That's not really a question, but if it's a thing, then rest assured God didn't create it. After all, we just established that he doesn't exist. If you'd pull the trigger, I can show you where I'm going with this, but never mind. Whether God exists or not is not pertinent to the conversation. This is about omnipotence. Omni means "all" and potency means The quality or condition of being potent.
Inherent capacity for growth and development; potentiality.
The quality of being potent; power; inherent strength.The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. On a related note: "Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: 'mankind'. Basically, it's made up of two separate words - 'mank' and 'ind. What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind." - Jack Handy Where's the trigger?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 14, 2021 8:52:36 GMT
What was it to begin with? Something that didn't know where Adam was? God did know. Why did he ask Adam&Eve where they were hiding? For the same reason a parent asks their child “what did you do?” despite knowing exactly what the child did wrong. They want them to admit it and accept their own responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 14, 2021 8:55:26 GMT
Keep in mind an atheist is not always someone who rejects all supernatural, paranormal, or metaphysical explanations. It’s that we ideally approach the subjects with skepticism. Empiricism should be front and center to any claims of facts. All revelatory information like the Bible is hearsay and should be treated as such by the non-adherents of that faith. But skepticism is not the same as being close-minded. Religionists are far more close-minded than atheists. I actually remember the first line of thinking that made me skeptical. How could an all loving God punish me for not believing something I am incapable of believing? Theists have all sorts of unconvincing responses to this. You have to have "faith" is the one I heard most. I had always found that kind of faith to be nonsense. How are you incapable of believing?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 8:55:59 GMT
omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. On a related note: "Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: 'mankind'. Basically, it's made up of two separate words - 'mank' and 'ind. What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind." - Jack Handy Where's the trigger? The trigger is simply answer yes or no to a question. Oh. Ok. Then yes. I prefer CS Lewis' phrasing. Not being able to do the intrinsically impossible only negates omnipotence if omnipotence is presumed to be the ability to do anything as the question literally states. Party pooper.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 9:09:27 GMT
Something that didn't know where Adam was? God did know. Why did he ask Adam&Eve where they were hiding? For the same reason a parent asks their child “what did you do?” despite knowing exactly what the child did wrong. They want them to admit it and accept their own responsibility. So God was pretending?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 14, 2021 9:18:09 GMT
I agree with that, but that isn't the same as God is LOVE. If God is the totality of everything than God is LOVE and HATE and GOOD and EVIL and everything else.
When you have something you can stretch any way you like you can confuse people into believing it. According to the bible: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:8) Correct. The word translated evil there doesn’t necessarily mean moral evil. Some of the definitions include “calamity, adversity, affliction etc. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is about God rewarding those whom are obedient and bringing judgement on those who continue to rebel against him. God did know where Adam was hiding. He was merely challenging Adam on his wrongdoing. You did. The word translated there as hell refers to the grave or place of the dead not the place for eternal punishment for unbelievers.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 14, 2021 9:23:23 GMT
God did know. Why did he ask Adam&Eve where they were hiding? For the same reason a parent asks their child “what did you do?” despite knowing exactly what the child did wrong. They want them to admit it and accept their own responsibility. So God was pretending? Is challenging Adam on his wrongdoing pretending?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 9:44:56 GMT
According to the bible: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:8) Correct. The word translated evil there doesn’t necessarily mean moral evil. Some of the definitions include “calamity, adversity, affliction etc. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is about God rewarding those whom are obedient and bringing judgement on those who continue to rebel against him. God did know where Adam was hiding. He was merely challenging Adam on his wrongdoing. You did. The word translated there as hell refers to the grave or place of the dead not the place for eternal punishment for unbelievers. I'm going to pass on the translation game. The point of Psalm 139:8 is that you can't hide from God...as he led Adam to believe. So... Is challenging Adam on his wrongdoing pretending? ...yeah.
|
|