Something more powerful than God

Originally posted by rwingett
Are you implying that because god cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift that he is not omnipotent?

Not necessarily, since people have different notions of what omnipotence means, regardless of how the dictionary defines it, or they may use some other term altogehter to describe God's abilities.

My point is that there is something that can always trump God's designs.
God never has the last word in any universe in which the law of non-contradiciton holds. He is always second in command to that law's veto power. In that sense there is something more powerful than God. To me if X is omnipotent, that implies that nothing is more powerful than X, for X has every power. In this sense, I would say that no God could be omnipotent in a universe in which the law holds.

Originally posted by nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]All the time! God has to reveal Himself to each person, they must
be called of God to answer Him.

What if that call involves something mutually exclusive to the Bible's
list of salvific requirements? Given that God adopts His plan for each
person and the world as the situation in time requires (as you seem ...[text shortened]... to people who would
otherwise appear to be violating a particular term of salvation?

Nemesio[/b]

Jesus said He was the Way, the Truth, the Light that no one comes
to God except through Him. Outside of what God did, there isn't an
acceptable way to God except the one God provided. There are many
ways that make the proper claims, but Jesus is the only one who
gets us there. There is no salvation except through Jesus, and even
there, people try to add to and take away from that.
Kelly

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'll have to mull this over some. Your ideas isn't exactly clear to me.

It sounds like you envision some kind of market system, in which
people invest in shares of the different camps, and then try to argue
in the forums to make the camp look stronger, thereby raising the value
of those shares.

I think this would work and not collapse i ...[text shortened]... haps that could be done at another site, much like the ratings market
that Phlab runs.

Dr. S

I was actually thinking of more of a classical, formal debate like between Harvard and Yale, for example, with points awarded each team for clear logic and exposition style. At the end of the week, the points would be totalled and the winning squad would receive me as a member of their squad for the upcoming week. I see no reason why this weaken either squad; in my profession I am quite used to fervently arguing for things I don't believe in or against things that I fervently do believe in. I have passionately argued one position one week and just as passionately argued a diametrically opposed position the next week. Therefore, the equilibrum model might not hold.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Not necessarily, since people have different notions of what omnipotence means, regardless of how the dictionary defines it, or they may use some other term altogehter to describe God's abilities.

My point is that there is something that can always trump God's designs.
God never has the last word in any universe in which the law of non-contradi ...[text shortened]... wer. In this, I would say that no God could be omnipotent in a universe in which the law holds.

I agree with you, anything that can be done, God can do it, except
those things that go against His nature or Word. God for example
wouldn't/couldn't make a square circle, unless He just changed the
name and how we defined circles, He wouldn't lie and so on.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Jesus said He was the Way, the Truth, the Light that no one comes
to God except through Him.

Two questions:

1) By 'through Him' (i.e., Jesus), what do you mean?

2) Can Jesus reveal Himself, as per the notion of personal
relationship, in different ways to different people? For example,
take the rich man: Jesus required (of that specific individual) the
he sell all his belongings. Jesus revealed Himself in a specific
manner peculiar to that man (and perhaps people like that man).
Just like the OT stories are 'fulfilled' by the NT ones, and OT Law
becomes empty of salvific efficacy, can Jesus reveal Himself
personally to people through prayer and ask a person to do
something mutally exclusive to the Bible's teachings?

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
I was actually thinking of more of a classical, formal debate like between Harvard and Yale, for example, with points awarded each team for clear logic and exposition style. At the end of the week, the points would be totalled and the winning squad would receive me as a member of their squad for the upcoming week. I see no reason why this weaken ...[text shortened]... a diametrically opposed position the next week. Therefore, the equilibrum model might not hold.

I was afraid that you might have this in mind. The system you describe quickly collapses into one side having all the talent and the other having the stubborn dregs who are fighting for nothing more than to avoid the shame of switching sides. It would quickly become the Globetrotters vs. the Nationals.

The only way to avoid this collapse is if people switch sides irrationally, going from the winning team to the losing team.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Not necessarily, since people have different notions of what omnipotence means, regardless of how the dictionary defines it, or they may use some other term altogehter to describe God's abilities.

My point is that there is somet ...[text shortened]... t no God could be omnipotent in a universe in which the law holds.

The definition of omnipotence I've shown you is inconsistent with the one you are providing. I still maintain that it is feasible for a theist to argue that the law of non-contradiction and god's omnipotence are not necessarily in contradiction themselves. I think it is mistaken to say that the law of non-contradiction is "more powerful" that god. More powerful how? Did they arm wrestle? It would be more accurate to say that god is unable to defy the law of non-contradiction, or that even an omnipotent god must work within its limitations.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you, anything that can be done, God can do it, except
those things that go against His nature or Word. God for example
wouldn't/couldn't make a square circle, unless He just changed the
name and how we defined circles, He wouldn't lie and so on.
Kelly

OK, I can live with this. But it reduces "omnipotence" to a completely circular notion. That is, to say "God is omnipotent" is to say "God can do all things that God can do." That's making a rather empty and relative claim, as opposed to the more absolute claim that people would like to make about God's power.

Dr. S

P.S. RWillis, in response to your last post, see this. Your defintion of omnipotence is equally circular.

Originally posted by rwingett
I think is mistaken to say that the law of non-contradiction is "more powerful" that god. More powerful how?

More powerful in the sense that when they find themselves in conflict, God loses. You could think of it as a logical arm-wrestling match, I suppose.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I was afraid that you might have this in mind. The system you describe quickly collapses into one side having all the talent and the other having the stubborn dregs who are fighting for nothing more than to avoid the shame of switching sides. It would quickly become the Globetrotters vs. the Nationals.

The only way to avoid this collapse is if people switch sides irrationally, going from the winning team to the losing team.

It was YOUR idea, not mine. I quote:

But it sure would make RHP debates a lot more interesting if it wasn't true! Imagine if we were playing for real stakes here, with people being won back and forth between the two factions as they won and lost arguments!

I was just trying to put some actual value on these neverending pointless "debates", some spirited competition. This is a chess site, for (God's)(NotGod's) sakes!

Originally posted by nemesio
Two questions:

1) By 'through Him' (i.e., Jesus), what do you mean?

2) Can Jesus reveal Himself, as per the notion of personal
relationship, in different ways to different people? For example,
take the rich man: Jesus required (of that specific individual) the
he sell all his belongings. Jesus revealed Himself in a specific
manner peculiar t ...[text shortened]... prayer and ask a person to do
something mutally exclusive to the Bible's teachings?

Nemesio

1. Through Him, there is no other name, no other person, He is
the way, the truth, the light.
Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.


I'd say this limits it quite a bit.

2. As each person is different the relationships will be different as
all relationships are. Someone may not care one wit about money
but hate people of different colors, so God dealing with them is
going to be different than someone who does not hate, but loves
money above things they shouldn't.

I believe your 2nd question is why we have so many different
denominations, because God deals with people on X, so X becomes
something so important to them they think it must be so with
everyone else.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
It was YOUR idea, not mine. I quote:

But it sure would make RHP debates a lot more interesting if it wasn't true! Imagine if we were playing for real stakes here, with people being won back and forth between the two factions as they won and lost arguments!

No, my idea was not to have any kind of team or market competition. It was simply that it would make for a more interesting arena if everytime you entered into an argument, you were putting your own theology at risk. If you lost the debate, you would have to convert.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, my idea was not to have any kind of team or market competition. It was simply that it would make for a more interesting arena if everytime you entered into an argument, you were putting your own theology at risk. If you lost the debate, you would have to convert.

I have misunderstood your concept and has I have no opinion on the whole God/NoGod thing and regard it as unknowable within the constraints of present knowledge, I shall withdraw from this religion/notreligion thread as I withdraw from all others.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have misunderstood your concept and has I have no opinion on the whole God/NoGod thing and regard it as unknowable within the constraints of present knowledge, I shall withdraw from this religion/notreligion thread as I withdraw from all others.

Please, don't, you'll leave us so void of malcontent!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Please, don't, you'll leave us so void of malcontent!

Are you saying others will supply equal or more offensiveness?