08 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwA god that is silly, and patently illogical cannot exist, and is therefore not spiritual (example: gods that can create rocks they cannot lift - a naive formulation of omnipotence)
Then who decides what is spiritual and what is not?
Other gods can be determined infeasible by a more detailed inspection.
08 Nov 10
Originally posted by AgergAccording to you there is no God. Therefore your example is silly and patently illogical.
A god that is silly, and patently illogical cannot exist, and is therefore not spiritual (example: gods that can create rocks they cannot lift - a naive formulation of omnipotence)
Other gods can be determined infeasible by a more detailed inspection.
The question; Can God create a rock He cannot lift?, is a naive formulation of a mind that does not comprehend God.
The answer is that God will not create a rock He can't lift. Therefore the question is for those who cannot comprehend God.
08 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by josephw"Can God create a rock He cannot lift?" says nothing about the will to do such a thing, only the potentiality. It is inherently illogical, and thus should not enter into ones formulation of omnipotence.
According to you there is no God. Therefore your example is silly and patently illogical.
The question; Can God create a rock He cannot lift?, is a naive formulation of a mind that does not comprehend God.
The answer is that God will not create a rock He can't lift. Therefore the question is for those who cannot comprehend God.
08 Nov 10
Originally posted by AgergFor an atheist to ask the question is illogical. If there is no God then the question is moot.
"Can God create a rock He cannot lift?" says nothing about the will to do such a thing, only the potentiality. It is inherently illogical, and thus should not enter into ones formulation of omnipotence.
You are wrong about it not being about God's will. Creating is an act of the will.
You must think about what you're saying.
08 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by josephw"Can god create a rock so heavy it can't lift?" questions only it's potential to do such a thing, not whether it has done, is doing, or will do such a thing.
For an atheist to ask the question is illogical. If there is no God then the question is moot.
You are wrong about it not being about God's will. Creating is an act of the will.
You must think about what you're saying.
Moreover I , an atheist, choose to ask questions about your god for no reason other than they interest me in a philosophical sense (and that is sufficient reason for me). I choose not to ask that particular question above because it is daft.
08 Nov 10
Originally posted by Agerg"I choose not to ask that particular question above because it is daft."
"Can god create a rock so heavy it can't lift?" questions only it's potential to do such a thing, not whether it has done, is doing, or will do such a thing.
Moreover I , an atheist, choose to ask questions about your god for no reason other than they interest me in a philosophical sense (and that is sufficient reason for me). I choose not to ask that particular question above because it is daft.
Then why did you bring it up?
I reread your posts above and can find no rhyme or reason in them.
I'm not so sure there's anything spiritual about debating the existence of God.
08 Nov 10
3 edits
Originally posted by josephwThen why did you bring it up?
[b]"I choose not to ask that particular question above because it is daft."
Then why did you bring it up?
I reread your posts above and can find no rhyme or reason in them.
I'm not so sure there's anything spiritual about debating the existence of God.[/b]
I reread your posts above and can find no rhyme or reason in them.
as an example of gods that cannot exist, as a response to your question in post 3. I will repost the sequence of questions that got us here with annotation:
You (1a): Is it spiritual to debate about the existence of God?
Me (1b): Yes (in the sense that one can increase his knowledge about that which *can* be spiritual, and that which cannot).Answering (1a) in the affirmative sense
You (2a): Then who decides what is spiritual and what is not? A request for some criterion that permits assignments of spiritual or not spiritual with regards to gods
Me (2b): A god that is silly, and patently illogical cannot exist, and is therefore not spiritual (example: gods that can create rocks they cannot lift - a naive formulation of omnipotence)
Other gods can be determined infeasible by a more detailed inspection.In the first line I give you one particular criterion (with example to illustrate the point), and in the second I hint that certain notions of god can be shown to satisfy that criterion (with a little work)
You (3a): According to you there is no God. Therefore your example is silly and patently illogical.
The question; Can God create a rock He cannot lift?, is a naive formulation of a mind that does not comprehend God.
The answer is that God will not create a rock He can't lift. Therefore the question is for those who cannot comprehend God.
Your last was a misinterpretation of the example question. Your first two - who knows???
Me (3b): "Can God create a rock He cannot lift?" says nothing about the will to do such a thing, only the potentiality. It is inherently illogical, and thus should not enter into ones formulation of omnipotence.Correcting you in the third line of (3a)
You (4a): For an atheist to ask the question is illogical. If there is no God then the question is moot.
You are wrong about it not being about God's will. Creating is an act of the will.
You must think about what you're saying.Your first line seeks to conclude I have no business answering your question. Your second line is a restatement of the mistake you made in (3a) which I corrected in (3b)
Me (4b): "Can god create a rock so heavy it can't lift?" questions only it's potential to do such a thing, not whether it has done, is doing, or will do such a thing.
Moreover I , an atheist, choose to ask questions about your god for no reason other than they interest me in a philosophical sense (and that is sufficient reason for me). I choose not to ask that particular question above because it is daft.My first line is a correction of (3a) and (4a), My second is a counter to your first line in (4a), and a reinforcement of the statement I made in (2b)
You (5a):"I choose not to ask that particular question above because it is daft."
Then why did you bring it up?
I reread your posts above and can find no rhyme or reason in them.
I'm not so sure there's anything spiritual about debating the existence of God.You have got yourself all muddled up
Hope this helps 🙂
08 Nov 10
Originally posted by AgergThis thread is getting less spiritual with each posting.
[b]Then why did you bring it up?
I reread your posts above and can find no rhyme or reason in them.
as an example of gods that cannot exist, as a response to your question in post 3. I will repost the sequence of questions that got us here with annotation:
You (1a): Is it spiritual to debate about the existence of God?
Me (1b): Yes (in t ...[text shortened]... ce of God.You have got yourself all muddled up
Hope this helps 🙂[/b]
I give up. 😞
08 Nov 10
Originally posted by josephwHow do you know? Do you god that much so you know how he thinks?
The answer is that God will not create a rock He can't lift. Therefore the question is for those who cannot comprehend God.
Tell me one person who truly knows what god thinks, and ask him why god allowed the holocoust. If he hesitates, he is lying. Noone knows god so much so he knows how he thinks.
Not even you.
08 Nov 10
Originally posted by KellyJayNoone decides how old Earth is. Noone can decide that the Earth is 6 days, 6000 years, or10 million of years, or whatever. Noone but the Universe itself.
The same people who decide how old the earth is, if there is a God, gods, or no
God or gods, the same people who decide what is right and wrong. The same
people who can be wrong about all of the above.
Kelly
If someone says the Universe is x years of age, the Universe doesn't change it's age upon this solely. Those creationists who think this, are all wrong.
But knowledge about the Universe doesn't come from "We cannot know the age, so we don't even try". It comes from "The Universe are giving us a clue of its age, and all we have to know to know more about the age is to do some scientific research and make observations."