18 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerAnd who wrote this?
[b]If God cannot control logic, then perhaps God is not omnipotent. We only have our own word that He is.
We have his word:
Matthew 19:26
"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
[/b]
18 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat Scripture is in direct contradiction to your statement:
[b]If God cannot control logic, then perhaps God is not omnipotent. We only have our own word that He is.
We have his word:
Matthew 19:26
"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
[/b]
No. God cannot do the logically impossible
Jesus said "with God all things are possible". ALL would include the "logically impossible". Thus, Jesus says you are wrong.
18 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat brings me back to the question I asked you in another thread ("Why Muffy does not exist" ) and which you still haven't answered: Even if I were to accept that it was indeed god speaking through Matthew, how do I know he doesn't lie?
Matthew inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.
18 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't bother dj with Christ's words ( even tho it was his cite) he will find a Paulian contradiction to toss at you to prove ,once again (to himself) , that you don't know anything about Christ words.
That Scripture is in direct contradiction to your statement:
No. God cannot do the logically impossible
Jesus said "with God all things are possible". ALL would include the "logically impossible". Thus, Jesus says you are wrong.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 May 05
Originally posted by NordlysDo you have any reason to suggest that God might be lying?
That brings me back to the question I asked you in another thread ("Why Muffy does not exist" ) and which you still haven't answered: Even if I were to accept that it was indeed god speaking through Matthew, how do I know he doesn't lie?
18 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt's very convenient to have others think you are omnipotent. Dictators often lie about their powers to make those they rule over more submissive. Or god is just lying for fun. I am sure there could be other reasons. Of course there is also the possibility that god honestly believes himself that he is omnipotent even though he isn't.
Do you have any reason to suggest that God might be lying?
18 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe following was posted about 1 week ago:
[b]If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so big that He can't lift it?
This question has popped up quite a few times. The answer:
No. God cannot do the logically impossible, any more than He can act out of character with ...[text shortened]... e Jeremiah 32:17, Matthew 19:26, Hebrews 6:18, and 2 Timothy 2:13.[/b]
Originally posted by telerion
By omnipotence, God can do anything that is logically possible.
Direct response by dj2
Where did you hear this? Omnipotence is defined as "Having unlimited or universal power."
Direct response by telerion
Oh, so then in your view God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.
I think that there is some combination of two effects occuring.
1) You read way too much xtian propoganda and never analyze a scrap of it critically.
2) You make crap up as you go along based upon what is convenient for the moment.
18 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionGame. Set. Match.
The following was posted about 1 week ago:
Originally posted by telerion
[b]By omnipotence, God can do anything that is logically possible.
Direct response by dj2
Where did you hear this? Omnipotence is defined ...[text shortened]... you go along based upon what is convenient for the moment.
[/b]
I would still like to hear your comment on my argument that omnipotence implies the ability to forfeit it (permanently or temporarily).
18 May 05
Originally posted by PalynkaFirst off, dj2, probably in a rush to stamp out evil doers, has completely missed the point of your argument.
Game. Set. Match.
I would still like to hear your comment on my argument that omnipotence implies the ability to forfeit it (permanently or temporarily).
In my opinion, the theist who wants to endow his/her idol with the attribute of omnipotence should either stick to the definition that omnipotence means "the ability to do anything that is logically possible" (conceding that their deity is bounded by logic) or just flat claim that their god can do anything, logical or not (Here all statements about the deity become meaningless.)
If we take the first case, then the next logical question is "Is it logically possible to move from a state of omnipotence to one of impotence?" If it can be shown that it is logically possible, then your argument seems to hold. I'm not so sure though that it can be shown. I've given it some careful thought, and I think that it would imply that omnipotence would have to be both itself and its negation.
There are others on this site though that are better trained than I to answer your question. I'm interested in what they would say. You've asked an interesting question.
As for the second case, it is nonsense. Once god is unbounded by logic then truth statements become meaningless.
I think problems arise for dj2 since his god has many more attributes than just omnipotence. Not the least of these problems is that his god is supposed to be the creator of reality, which makes us think that we should consider the second case above. From there, we dive into meaninglessness.
18 May 05
If God can move from a state of omnipotence to non-omnipotence, then God would no longer be God by definition. So then the argument, "God can create a rock he can not lift," requires God to be God to create the rock and non-God to be unable to lift the rock. Or God is not omnipotent to start, because a non-omnipotent being might be able to create something he could not lift. In either case, the "he" that can not lift the rock in not God because he is not omnipotent. The argument is either a contradiction, or is fallacious by equivocation. Regardless of God being logical or not, the argument itself is illogical.
18 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiThen the definition of God, or at least your definition of God, is illogical.
If God can move from a state of omnipotence to non-omnipotence, then God would no longer be God by definition. So then the argument, "God can create a rock he can not lift," requires God to be God to create the rock and non-God to be unable to lift the rock. Or God is not omnipotent to start, because a non-omnipotent being might be able to create somethi ...[text shortened]... us by equivocation. Regardless of God being logical or not, the argument itself is illogical.