1. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    04 Aug '11 07:05
    If not then he is not omnipotent.

    If so is there proof?
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    04 Aug '11 07:44
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    If not then he is not omnipotent.

    If so is there proof?
    The God of the Holy Bible can not lie because the Holy Bible says so.
    And He may not be omnipotent but he is certainly Almighty because
    the Holy Bible says so.
  3. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    04 Aug '11 07:52
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The God of the Holy Bible can not lie because the Holy Bible says so.
    And He may not be omnipotent but he is certainly Almighty because
    the Holy Bible says so.
    mmmm
    Isnt "the Holy Bible" the word of god? So if it says he doesnt lie that must mean he always tells the truth .. unless he does lie and the bible is a lie?
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    04 Aug '11 08:01
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    mmmm
    Isnt "the Holy Bible" the word of god? So if it says he doesnt lie that must mean he always tells the truth .. unless he does lie and the bible is a lie?
    That's the way I see it. So God always tells the truth and so the Holy Bible
    is the Word of Truth just like it says it is. The proof of the truth of God is
    the Holy Bible and the truth of the Holy Bible is God. Very simple. Case
    solved. Now we can get a good nights sleep.
  5. Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    2158
    04 Aug '11 09:08
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    If not then he is not omnipotent.

    If so is there proof?
    I believe God is omnipotent.

    Just because He choses not to do something, doesn't mean that He doesn't have the power to do so.
  6. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    04 Aug '11 09:11
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That's the way I see it. So God always tells the truth and so the Holy Bible
    is the Word of Truth just like it says it is. The proof of the truth of God is
    the Holy Bible and the truth of the Holy Bible is God. Very simple. Case
    solved. Now we can get a good nights sleep.
    A classic bit of circular reasoning!

    1. I believe #deity does not lie
    2. I believe a book is the word of #deity
    3. The book says #deity does not lie
    4. Therefore #deity does not lie

    4 does not follow from 1, 2 and 3. You have just taken your belief and asserted it as undisputable fact.

    In no way is the case solved.

    --- Penguin.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    04 Aug '11 09:11
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The God of the Holy Bible can not lie because the Holy Bible says so.
    And He may not be omnipotent but he is certainly Almighty because
    the Holy Bible says so.
    so when he told abe to kill his son, that wasn't lying, it was a test (via deceit).
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    04 Aug '11 22:49
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    so when he told abe to kill his son, that wasn't lying, it was a test (via deceit).
    This was a foreshadowing of what was to come. There was a ram caught
    in the thicket that substituted for the sarifice of the son. The lamb of God,
    God's only begotten Son, substituted as a sacrifice for all who believe.
    Abraham believed God and it was counted as righteousness.

    "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that
    whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
    (John 3:16 NASB)
  9. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    04 Aug '11 23:28
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That's the way I see it. So God always tells the truth and so the Holy Bible
    is the Word of Truth just like it says it is. The proof of the truth of God is
    the Holy Bible and the truth of the Holy Bible is God. Very simple. Case
    solved. Now we can get a good nights sleep.
    Following your logic exactly

    That's the way I see it. So "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky" always tells the truth and so the "Book of Pasta Deities" is the Word of Truth just like it says it is. The proof of the truth of "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky" is "The Book of Pasta Deities" and the truth of the "The Book of Pasta Deities" is "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky". Very simple.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    05 Aug '11 00:03
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Following [b]your logic exactly

    That's the way I see it. So "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky" always tells the truth and so the "Book of Pasta Deities" is the Word of Truth just like it says it is. The proof of the truth of "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky" is "The Book of Pasta Deities" and the truth of the "The Book of Pasta Deities" is "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky". Very simple.[/b]
    I've never read "The Book of Pasta Deities" so I have no comment.
  11. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    06 Aug '11 00:22
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I've never read "The Book of Pasta Deities" so I have no comment.
    Well I always said you should read more.

    But you cant fault my logic can you?
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    06 Aug '11 01:42
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Well I always said you should read more.

    But you cant fault my logic can you?
    No. I think your logic is probably almost as good as mine.
  13. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    06 Aug '11 04:37
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    If not then he is not omnipotent.

    If so is there proof?
    I think there is an ambiguity in the word 'can': One is the dynamic sense ('it is within X's power to do Y); the other is the potential sense ('it is possible that X will do Y'😉. These however do not necessarily overlap. I can plough a field in the dynamic sense (I have the physical strength, the technical know-how and no disability which would prevent me from ploughing). However, I am not anywhere near arable land, have no access to the necessary equipment or, for that matter, have any reason to plough. In the potential sense of the word, I cannot at this moment plough.

    I think this is the theist's solution to your argument here. The theist can reply that only the dynamic sense of the word is relevant to his theological vocabulary. By omnipotence, he only means that God has the requisite power and ability, just not the volition since God has an honest character. In one sense of the word, God can lie; in another sense of the word, he cannot. As creator and ultimate power over the universe, God could destroy earth; because, however, he is love and has promised salvation to mankind, it would be impossible for him to do so. Impossibility however does not necessarily challenge his omnipotence unless it entails that the action is outside his power.
  14. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    06 Aug '11 07:45
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I think there is an ambiguity in the word 'can': One is the dynamic sense ('it is within X's power to do Y); the other is the potential sense ('it is possible that X will do Y'😉. These however do not necessarily overlap. I can plough a field in the dynamic sense (I have the physical strength, the technical know-how and no disability which would prevent me f ...[text shortened]... ssarily challenge his omnipotence unless it entails that the action is outside his power.
    In a previous thread, I wondered what it meant to say 'God can decide not to save mankind'. Adopting modal logic, I suggested that this meant that there must be some world in which God does not in fact decide to save mankind. Obviously this God would be hugely different from the traditional Christian one, requiring a total character transformation. If however we take 'can' not in the sense of 'it is possible that', but in the sense of 'has the power to', then that problem does not arise. To say 'God can decide not to save mankind' does not require a world where God in fact decides not to save mankind; it requires only a demonstration that such an act is at least within his power, whether or not God it is possible for God to not save mankind. Anyway...
  15. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    06 Aug '11 09:494 edits
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I think there is an ambiguity in the word 'can': One is the dynamic sense ('it is within X's power to do Y); the other is the potential sense ('it is possible that X will do Y'😉. These however do not necessarily overlap. I can plough a field in the dynamic sense (I have the physical strength, the technical know-how and no disability which would prevent me f ssarily challenge his omnipotence unless it entails that the action is outside his power.
    One feature that is not conserved with your ploughing a field analogy when considering the question "Can your god lie" is it's universality. By that I mean that presently you lack access to facilities to perform such ploughing, but next year may be different. As such you've only identified a small subset of all the possible situations you will be in whilst you exist here on earth for which you lack the resources to plough fields.
    However when the theist says outright that some god cannot lie because of it's honest character then he has made a statement about all situations it will be in (or is in); and so for his solution he might get marks for effort but will struggle with marks for attainment on this one,


    Reveal Hidden Content
    I am aware that \"presently\" and \"next year\" is loaded with the notion of time and we\'ve had small skirmishes on the issue of \"timeless\" gods before; I don\'t see the need for excessive pedantry yet though.
Back to Top