First cause

Originally posted by rwingett

So the theists are left with either a necessary, but cruel god, with a pre-determined universe, or with a completely unnecessary and ineffectual god whom we need take no further note of. Not an enviable choice.

Does the snake enjoy the taste of its own tail?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm right with you on this one conrauK. I have been the victim myself of twisting of words and mind games. There's a few charactors around here who like to portray themselves as the sole exponents of logic and objectivity and slayers of "evil religion".

Infact the truth is that they are just as fundamental than the fundies themselves and they are ...[text shortened]... e the "enemy" because you don't have a knee jerk "religion is ridiculous" approach.

Well? What CAN'T God do?

Originally posted by Agerg
Knightmeister! I am sure you aware that I care to know what this *holy spirit* has been up to as much as I care to know what is the FSM's favourite bedtime story.
I merely wish to analyse your assertion that God exists outside of time...I don't find it tenable at all, and so I ask again, by what mechanism does God "watch" things independently of time? 🙂

I don't know how he watches in reality. I certainly don't think he has invisible eyes if that's what you mean. The only thing I can say is that he is "present" and that enables him to know what he is present to. For example , he is present with you right now and in a sense within you also , so because of this he knows every hair on your head and every thought you are having including the unconscious ones. How he actually does this ---phew! -- I don't know.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ye Gods, whilst not all that bright you're certainly persistent.

Let's clear this up.

1) There is stuff God can't do.

2) Therefore, God does not have the power to do anything he chooses.

3) Thus, God is not omnipotent.

Ok scotty technically God is not totally omnipotent in the sense that he can't do things that are logically contradictions. So what's your point (other than trying to create a pedantic fly in the ointment).

Surely God is as omnipotent as any omnipotent being could be. It's impossible to have a being any more potent than God . He is as powerful as he possibly could be within the constraints of logic itself and what's more the things he can't do (like create a rock so heavy he can't lift it) make absolutely no difference at all to us nor his plans for the universe. Your objection is a pedantic , irrelevant technicality. But technically you are right , but in the true spirit and sense of the word I still think it is valid to say that he is omnipotent.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Surely God is as omnipotent as any omnipotent being could be. It's impossible to have a being any more potent than God .

And you know that how? Divine inspiration? Reasoning? Hope? The Bible?

Just interested.

He is as powerful as he possibly could be within the constraints of logic itself...
Oh so now you accept that logic is all encompassing. Even God is subject to it. So is logic some sort of super-eternal entity?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm right with you on this one conrauK. I have been the victim myself of twisting of words and mind games. There's a few charactors around here who like to portray themselves as the sole exponents of logic and objectivity and slayers of "evil religion".

Infact the truth is that they are just as fundamental than the fundies themselves and they are ...[text shortened]... e the "enemy" because you don't have a knee jerk "religion is ridiculous" approach.

Thanks. You're right, I do not have an axe to grind. I tend to oscillate between theism and atheism on a yearly basis, so I have great empathy for either side. I dispute the common characterisation of Christians as fundamentalists loonies, or that atheists are nihilistic charlatans. I just like to argue, as do you and everyone else!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ye Gods, whilst not all that bright you're certainly persistent.

Let's clear this up.

1) There is stuff God can't do.

2) Therefore, God does not have the power to do anything he chooses.

3) Thus, God is not omnipotent.

1) There is stuff God can't do.

2) Therefore, God does not have the power to do anything he chooses.

3) Thus, God is not omnipotent.

You have used this syllogism before. I grow weary. As I pointed out, to say that God can do absolutely anything, actually diminishes the attribute of omnipotence - for God to do something against his will, requires a force to overpower his will; his omnipotence is therefore violated. Despite your pretensions to being logical and rational, reductio ad absurdum is cleary not your forte.

I think the Catholic encyclopedia offers a good summary of omnipotence:

Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

True omnipotence is therefore the power to effect all things that are possible. I do not know why you persist in your ridiculous definition of the term, which is espoused by only a minority of Christians. Catholics, Orthodox and Orientals, and Anglicans, and probably more, accept the definition I have stated.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And you know that how? Divine inspiration? Reasoning? Hope? The Bible?

Just interested.

[b]He is as powerful as he possibly could be within the constraints of logic itself...
Oh so now you accept that logic is all encompassing. Even God is subject to it. So is logic some sort of super-eternal entity?[/b]

Oh so now you accept that logic is all encompassing. Even God is subject to it. So is logic some sort of super-eternal entity?
---whitey---------------

Surely you should be asking yourself this question not me!!!! I think logic is inherent to all existence and is based on God's very nature such that it does not permit God to do something self contradictory. I have been arguing from your perspective really since an all encompassing logic independent of the universe is not a luxury your belief system affords.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]1) There is stuff God can't do.

2) Therefore, God does not have the power to do anything he chooses.

3) Thus, God is not omnipotent.

You have used this syllogism before. I grow weary. As I pointed out, to say that God can do absolutely anything, actually diminishes the attribute of omnipotence - for God to do something against his will, req ...[text shortened]... Orthodox and Orientals, and Anglicans, and probably more, accept the definition I have stated.[/b]

I do not know why you persist in your ridiculous definition of the term conrau-----------

I do . He's grinding his axe and taking a biased view. He will continue to apply a different set of logical rules and reasoning to God than he would do to anything else. He's on a mission remember.

"Discredit the idea of God whenever possible using any means possible"

Originally posted by twhitehead
And you know that how? Divine inspiration? Reasoning? Hope? The Bible?

Just interested.

[b]He is as powerful as he possibly could be within the constraints of logic itself...
Oh so now you accept that logic is all encompassing. Even God is subject to it. So is logic some sort of super-eternal entity?[/b]

And you know that how? Divine inspiration? Reasoning? Hope? The Bible?

Just interested.

---WHITEY----

By definition. I do not know as such but this idea of omnipotence is implied in the defintion of God implied in the argument.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have been arguing from your perspective really since an all encompassing logic independent of the universe is not a luxury your belief system affords.

How do you come by that conclusion? You keep posting it but I haven't seen you back it up. Also, "an all encompassing logic independent of the universe" is what I was claiming from the very beginning and have maintained in every thread on the matter.

Originally posted by knightmeister
By definition. I do not know as such but this idea of omnipotence is implied in the defintion of God implied in the argument.

So you are saying that the God you believe in may not be omnipotent?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]1) There is stuff God can't do.

2) Therefore, God does not have the power to do anything he chooses.

3) Thus, God is not omnipotent.

You have used this syllogism before. I grow weary. As I pointed out, to say that God can do absolutely anything, actually diminishes the attribute of omnipotence - for God to do something against his will, req ...[text shortened]... Orthodox and Orientals, and Anglicans, and probably more, accept the definition I have stated.[/b]

But not Merriam-Webster,

having virtually unlimited authority or influence

or Dictionary.com

almighty or infinite in power, as God.

or Wiki

Omnipotence (literally, "all power"😉 is power with no limits i.e. unlimited power.


Seems only the theists which believe that "all power" means "not really all power". Furthermore, I don't actually know what authority you are quoting from. The bible?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Does the snake enjoy the taste of its own tail?

I'm afraid your reference is a bit too obscure for me. A little help, please.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't know how he watches in reality. I certainly don't think he has invisible eyes if that's what you mean. The only thing I can say is that he is "present" and that enables him to know what he is present to. For example , he is present with you right now and in a sense within you also , so because of this he knows every hair on your head and every ...[text shortened]... having including the unconscious ones. How he actually does this ---phew! -- I don't know.

see...if I made a comment along the lines of God is at both ends of the timeline, he exists outside of time, he doesn't know what actions we will take as result of our free will, he merely watches (independently of time) in order to rebut a point made by some atheist, I'd make sure I had some means of backing up this assertion with strong justification and explanation.
This seems to be somewhat lacking on your end and so until such time your concept is better developed I think it can be dis-regarded as crack-pottery whenever you present it. (I mean no offence btw)