http://freethought.mbdojo.com/disproof1.html
Its basicly the standard arguements but i would like to see the christians try to refute them. I already tryed this on my deeply religous roomate and he couldnt refute them so lets see if the christians of sciforums can. :D


Proofs for the Nonexistence of God
2000

It is often claimed by believers, and sometimes by nonbelievers as well, that we can't prove the nonexistence of God. While the inability to disprove a claim is true in some cases, disproof can be achieved by a logical method. For instance, if a claim is specific enough (supplying enough detail), we can examine those details, and we can determine that the claim is false if the description of it contradicts itself.

For example, if someone claimed he had discovered a "square circle", we could examine the claim through logic, without ever having to view the circle. Both circles and squares are well-defined in geometry. We know that it is a tenet of geometry that circles have no angles. Therefore it is clear that there can be no such thing as a square circle, because the description refutes itself.

The idea of the biblical God can be destroyed in a similar manner.

It is claimed that the God of the bible is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (in all places at the same time), omniscient (He knows everything), and omnibenevolent (He only does things that are all good). As you shall soon see, not only are these concepts utterly impossible from a logical standpoint, but for the God of the Judeo-Christian bible, they are mutually exclusive with each other, and therefore no such being as the Christian God can possibly exist. Before I get to the logic behind these statements, first you should know that each of those concepts is refuted in the bible. That's right. The bible, our ONLY source of information about God, does not support these strange notions.

Omnipotence:

The bible says "With God, all things are possible." But there are instances in the bible where God cannot in fact do everything. In Judges 1:19 we read: "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." So, if you want to triumph over God, get yourselves some chariots of iron-- that's the way.

Can God destroy the Devil? Then why doesn't He? If God is the most compassionate of any entity, then why doesn't He release people from the hell that He created, the hell that He sent people to? Is it because He is unable to do so? Or unwilling? Or not completely merciful?

Epicurus posed the following problem in the Second Century BCE.

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot.
Or he can, but does not want to.
Or he cannot, and does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.
If he can, but does not want to, then he is wicked.
If he neither can, nor wants to, he is both powerless and wicked.

If He is all powerful, why is He unable to release humanity from the penalty of Original Sin? If you say that He is able to, but that He chooses not to, then how can you claim that He is all-good? Or the most compassionate? If He were all-powerful and all-good, He would have simply erased the Original Sin, and let people be judged on their own actions, not those of someone they never knew. He would have simply eliminated Adam and Eve, and started again (and this time, take the Tree out of the Garden), thus releasing all the other people who would ever live from the sin supposedly committed by the first man and woman.

Why did God need to "rest" on the 7th day? Did He grow fatigued? Did He have a body that got tired? What did He do on the 8th day? How was it different than what He did on the 7th day? Why would someone who is "all-powerful" need to "rest"? He wouldn't. Some suggest that he simply "ceased" what he was doing. But the bible does not say "And on the 7th day the Lord ceased" or "was finished". It says he "rested". Does it mean that he abstained from all activity? Could that even be possible for God, without whose constant attention the world would cease?


Omnipresence:

Christians claim that there God is everywhere, all places, at the same time. He fills the universe with his presence. But there are biblical passages which refute this bizarre notion. Let us first consider Deuteronomy 23:12-14.

"Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:
And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee."

Christians should be embarrassed that this absurd passage is in their holy book. It is one of the most absurd things I have ever had the misfortune to read. It is apparent that God is too easily offended by a natural process which he knows all humans are subject to, even Jesus Christ. He himself designed the process, as claimed by his believers. Yet the Almighty seems awful squeamish-- perhaps he is afraid he might step in something.

A walking god? But He was omnipresent, everywhere anyway, even in the "place abroad" where they "eased themselves". Why must God have to walk anywhere? It claims that He walked in the camp to a) "deliver thee" and b) "to give up thine enemies before thee". Was He unable to do these things from any other place? Was He unable to do them from His Kingdom of Heaven? Walking somewhere explicitly implies a localized physical presence. It implies feet. It implies physical locomotion. In implies being in one place, and not in any other, and therefore going from where you are to where you are not. This problem is unavoidable, and it contradicts the idea of an omnipresent god.

God, in the form of Jesus, said to "love thine enemies". But here, in the form of God the Father, he is going to "give up thine enemies before thee." Why this change in an unchanging God?

Now let us look at Exodus 33:20-23

"And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

This biblical passage is as absurd as the last one. This one implies body parts for God... a physical presence. A front part and a back part. Some parts of him could be seen safely, others could not. His rump was safe to look at, but his face was not. Personally, I'd rather see his face. These verses not only deny His omnipresence, they impose physical limitations on him and his attributes. God should not have to walk anywhere-- He should not have to go from one place to another if He is in all places at once. This shows that the ancient Hebrews thought that their god looked exactly like them, with a male face, body, and hands.

If you could not see His face and live, then it was by His choice, for He is "omnipotent" and with Him "all things are possible." Therefore, if you see His face and expire, it is because he wanted it to be so, and therefore it is hardly appropriate to call Him omnibenevolent, or "all-good".

In addition, this verse is contradicted by other bible passages. Some men did see his face and live...

* Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."
* Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
* Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."
* Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

Has anyone seen Him and lived? Or not? It says both. Both statements can't be true.

There is another passage in the Old Testament in which the Lord has to "come down" to a city in order to see it. Why should he have to do this? The mere inclusion of passages like these belittle the god of the Israelites.

Now let's examine Genesis 3:8-10.

"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself."

Here again we have a "Walking God", going from one place where He is to another place where he is not. Here we see Him not being able to find Adam and Eve who were able to hide from Him. He could not have been in all places at once, if this verse be true. Some Christians use the excuse that God was playing some "hide and seek" game with Adam, even claiming that this passage shows God's "sense of humor". God's sense of humor! Tell that to the 42 children he slaughtered for making fun of one of His prophets. The idea that God was playing some kind of "hide and seek" is rather pathetic, especially considering the magnitude of the judgment God was about to pass upon Humanity; such an explanation is inconsistent with His character. Adam and Eve heard His voice and THEN hid themselves... was God talking to himself while he walked in the garden? Or was He talking to some of those "other gods" that the bible eludes to?

If God is omnipresent, he would not have to walk anywhere. The same for if he is omnipotent. If he was omniscient he would not have had to ask their whereabouts.

If God was omnipresent (and omnibenevolent), why then did He not appear in ALL nations equally at once? Why did He only appear to the Jews? Why was He their tribal god?

Omniscience:

There are real problems with this idea. If God is omniscient, he should NEVER change his mind. Think about that carefully. How could someone who knows the future change his mind? Changing his mind means that he did not know what he was going to do or what was going to happen, and shows his uncertainty. But the bible is full of instances where God changes his mind. For example, first is Exodus 32:14. After the incident when God's Chosen People worshipped the Golden Calf, God decided that He would destroy them all, and raise up some other nation, but Moses begged and pleaded on their behalf, "and the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Now consider this for a moment. God knows all things, past and present, including His own future decisions. Therefore, did He really intend to destroy the Israelites? Or did He just bear false witness?

There is also Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." If He "did it not", then He knew from the beginning that He would not do it, and if He told someone that He was going to do it, then He was lying.

Of course, the most spectacular instance of God flip-flopping on an issue is when He changed His mind about Humanity, and killed everyone on the planet with a Great Flood. Genesis 6:6,7-- "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him." But when He created humans, He saw that it was good. If he saw that it was good, then he must have forgotten, or not known about, the evil nature of man.

Didn't He know 'the beginning from the end', as we are led to believe? Didn't He know when he made them that Humanity would become so utterly evil that all men, women and children, millions of them, would have to be drowned? Of course. How then, could He regret that He had made them, if He knew perfectly well from the beginning that He would have to destroy them? That is illogical. Someone who knows the future cannot regret something he did. If he regrets something, that means he did not know the future in the first place.

One may argue that He knew that He would change His mind, and that He knew He would regret these things, but then you have to admit that He did not truly change his mind, and His regret was not real regret-- in other words the bible becomes deceitful and you cannot trust what it says.

Was God being less than truthful? He can't have been, for Proverbs 30:5 tell us that "Every word of God proves true." Also, Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."

Wait a minute... if lying is something that God CANNOT do, is He still "all-powerful"?

Hold on... he "hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." 1 Kings, 22:23. And "for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." 2 Thess. 2:11

Well then, He does lie after all... that sounds like the bible is contradicting itself yet again. Does He, or doesn't He? Why does the bible say both?

In fact, the bible tells us explicitly that God CANNOT lie or change his mind, in direct contradiction to to those verses above which say that He does:

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

The bible also says that God knows all things from the beginning unto the end... if this is the case, then there can NOT be a situation where God changes his mind. For if God changed his mind, that can ONLY mean that he did not know the future-- that some event or circumstance altered his knowledge and caused him to change his plan... but this would be impossible. If God is omniscient (knows all things), then he cannot change his mind, for there could be no unknown circumstance or event. Plus, the bible clearly tells us in absolute terms that God DOES NOT change his mind, or repent.

Now this raises even more problems for the idea of a god. This situation implies that God is not "all powerful", or omnipotent. If he was all powerful, then nothing-- nothing at all-- would be impossible for him, including changing his own mind. But clearly, He cannot change his mind if He knows the future. Thus He is robbed of his omnipotence by his own omniscience. In other words, the terms "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" are contradictory terms. They both can't be true at the same time.

Here is another example: Is God powerful enough to create something that He Himself cannot understand? If yes, then he is not all-knowing. If no, then he is not all-powerful. God, as described as both all-knowing and all-powerful, is a contradictory entity and cannot exist.

Another problem for the god idea is that the bible is FULL of accounts of God changing his mind, in direct contradiction to the verses listed above that say he doesn't.

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
Jeremiah 15:6 "Thou hast forsaken me, saith the Lord, thou art gone backward: therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am weary of repenting."

Does God change his mind or not? Does He "regret"? If He does, why does the bible say He doesn't? If He doesn't, why does He admit that He does?

There are several places in the bible where it is clear that God does not know what is going on. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they realized they were naked and hid themselves in the Garden. God could not find them, and had to wander around calling for them!

Omnibenevolence:

Omnibenevolent means that God only does things that are good. Period. Is everything in this world good? He Himself will let you know that He is not omnibenevolent. Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you." I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." Why would He do these things if He only does that which is good? The bible is filled with examples of god doing evil deeds.

If God is omniscient, He knows that in a week a tornado is going to rip through Kansas and kill a hundred people, wipe out twenty-thousand homes, and destroy three churches. He is omnipotent, and is therefore able to prevent it. If He was omnibenevolent, He would. Why doesn't He? Many Christians will claim that the destruction, death and misery is God's Will. Is then His Will omnibenevolent? Apparently not. They say that it must work out to some good end that we cannot understand... it works into his Divine Plan. And yet, these same Christians are the first ones to pray to God for him NOT TO INSTITUTE His Divine Plan! They are the ones to pray that the tornado ceases, or turns a mile to the west, or skips over their house. They should not presume to know better than their god, and to try to alter His plan. And then if their house was not destroyed, they get down on their knees amid all the destruction and death and thank their god. What an obscene gesture. They say their prayers were answered. But what of their neighbor, whose house was destroyed, who was just as devout a Christian, who prayed and wailed just as loudly? Well, that's God's Will again. If you believe Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent", then you must accept that your house was saved and your neighbor's house was destroyed all in accordance with an unchanging plan. Therefore, why waste your breath praying? If it is going to happen according to the plan, you can't change anything by praying.

Some say that we cannot understand His Will, and therefore some things appear bad that are good, simply because it is a mystery to us. Well to quote Thomas Paine: "But though every created thing is, in [a] sense, a mystery, the word mystery cannot be applied to moral truth, any more than obscurity can be applied to light... Mystery is the antagonist of truth. It is a fog of human invention that obscures truth and represents it in distortion. Truth never envelops itself in mystery; and the mystery in which it is enveloped is the work of its antagonist, and never of itself. Religion, therefore, being the belief of a God, and the practice of moral truth, cannot have connection with mystery."

The kind of destruction brought about by a tornado is not what falls into my definition of "all good." If God is all-good, then perhaps he is not all-powerful, and could not prevent the tornado. If he is all-powerful and all-good, maybe he is not omniscient, and he just didn't know the tornado was coming. But if he is omnipresent, in all places at once, he must have known it was coming. Or maybe the simplest answer is correct, that he just doesn't exist and was made up by humans to ease their fears and provide explanations of those things of which they are ignorant.

Consider the Titanic, as illustrated in the recent popular movie. If God did not in fact put the iceberg in the ship's path, he at least knew about it. He had the power to move it, or melt it. But he chose not to. It was all part of God's plan, presumably. All those dead men, women and children were part of God's great scheme. Men left without wives, women left without husbands, children left without parents, and fifteen hundred people dying a painful, terrifying, sorrowful and completely unnecessary death. I guess it was just their time. God "called them home". All 1500 of them-- 1500 people who just happened to all be scheduled for the Pearly Gates on April 15th, 1914... 1500 people condemned to death that just happened to all be on the same ship at the same time. What a fortunate coincidence-- for God. He must have said to himself: “I can kill 1500 birds with one stone! Hey, its my lucky day!” Why kill them peacefully and painlessly in their sleep in their old age when you can kill them in a torrent of pain and misery, making a spectacular show of your power by sinking the unsinkable ship! That will teach them!

There are logical reasons why omnipotence is impossible. The old joke spoken by atheist comedian George Carlin: “Could God make a rock so big that He Himself could not move it?” is a real illustration of how omnipotence is impossible. Can God make something so complex that he himself cannot understand it? Can God make something greater than himself? If he can't, he is not all-powerful. Can omnipotence exist with omniscience? No. If God cannot change his mind, then he is not all powerful. If he does change his mind, then he did not know the future. Saying that there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent and omnipresent god is like saying there are such things as square circles-- such a thing cannot and does not exist: it is a contradiction.

The conclusion from looking at the bible objectively, not assuming the truth of it, is that the God which it describes does not know everything, there are things He cannot do, and that He is not all good all the time, and He is not in all places at the same time. It shows that the Christian God is a contradictory entity, and cannot exist. But the bible, after all, is just a book. It is words on paper, written out by human hands and printed on ordinary printing presses. The books it contains, the books declared to be "inspired", were included by vote. There is no external evidence that it is anything other than just an ordinary book. Most Christians say that they know god is real because the bible says so. They also say that the bible is true because it is the word of god. Most of them are unaware that that is a circular argument, and irrational.

Some people insist that I take verses out of context and twist them to my meaning. The only people I have ever encountered who twist scripture around are those who seek to defend it. It is I who use scripture word for word, omitting or changing nothing, giving the complete context, and it is the biblical defender who tries to change the verse into something it does not say, to lessen the horror and absurdity of it.

This is solid logical evidence that shows absolutely that such a being proposed as the Judeo-Christian God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent) is utterly impossible. Okay, let's see some believer start twisting those verses, and show us why they mean something other than what they really say...

No one wants to try to take a shot at it?:D

I don't think anyone cares (or at least I don't). I mean, it's cute, but it's kind of pointless. :p

I don't think anyone cares (or at least I don't). I mean, it's cute, but it's kind of pointless. :p
True but i really want to see the christians try to fight reason. :D Its kinda like watching retards fight. You know you shouldnt laugh but you cant help it.

Atheists would get in on it, too. The participants would collectively reveal themselves as dumbasses. It would be a bunch of frat boys in a clown car plunging over a cliff as they fight over the last of the booze.

Spiritual_spy, that site was obviously written by someone who has no true understanding of the Bible, and is asking ignorant questions that Christian's have all heard before.

I don't have the time right now to go into all of them, but I'll answer a couple for now.


Why did God need to "rest" on the 7th day?

The Bible says that our Creator God does not get weary or tired. It turns out that the question is the direct result of a bad rendering of the Hebrew by the King James translation:

"And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." (Genesis 2:3)

The Hebrew word, shabath, translated "rest" does not really refer to a requirement to sleep or take a break due to weariness. In the vast majority of verses the NASB translates the word as some form of stopping or ceasing. In only 7 out of 68 instances is the word translated "rest" or "rested."

"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease [shabath] from labor in order that your ox and your donkey may rest [nuach], and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh [naphash] themselves. (Exodus 23:12)

So, what Genesis 2:3 is saying is that God stopped creating after the sixth day - not that God needed to take a break. The Bible indicates that the seventh day is not closed. In all other days the text says, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day." There is no such closing for the seventh day. In the New Testament book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest (which is continuing).

For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)

These verses indicate that we are currently in God's seventh day of "rest." However, according to the Bible, God has been very busy during this "rest" - forming the nation of Israel, sending the Messiah, and building His Church. During this time, God has ceased His creative work.


There are logical reasons why omnipotence is impossible. The old joke spoken by atheist comedian George Carlin: “Could God make a rock so big that He Himself could not move it?” is a real illustration of how omnipotence is impossible. Can God make something so complex that he himself cannot understand it? Can God make something greater than himself? If he can't, he is not all-powerful. .


I love George Carlin, but I'm sorry, but some of the arguments against omnipotence are just plain stupid. Can God create a spherical triangle? Saying that omnipotence requires the ability to do logically impossible things is stupid. God cannot turn truth into a lie. If humans define a triangle as a two dimensional object formed by the intersection of three lines, it makes no sense to ask if God could make one that was spherical. When one says that God is all-powerful, one means that God is able to accomplish all that He desires to do. Even an all-powerful being cannot do what is impossible by definition. God can do many things that are humanly impossible. However, there are some things that even an all-powerful being cannot do.

Can God create a rock He cannot lift? Since an all-powerful being will always be able to accomplish whatever He sets out to do, it is impossible for an all-powerful being to fail. The above atheistic argument is arguing that since God is all-powerful He can do anything - even fail. This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful. Obviously, this is absurd. An all-powerful being cannot fail. Therefore, God can create a rock of tremendous size, but, since He is all-powerful, He will always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.

Could God think of a time when He was not omnipotent? If He can't think of it, He isn't omnipotent, but if He does think of it then there was a time when He wasn't omnipotent? This question is quite similar to the rock question above. The answer, of course, is that God can never think of a time when He wasn't omnipotent. God has always been omnipotent. His inability to contradict His divine character does not mean that He isn't omnipotent.

The atheist distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible. Neither does omnipotence include the ability to fail. By defining omnipotence as requiring one to have the ability to fail, atheists have defined omnipotence as being impossible. Of course, an omnipotent God would never fail.

These kinds of arguments are clearly illogical and even silly, although they are commonly used by inexperienced atheists. Most intelligent atheists have dropped these kinds of arguments long ago.

yes that is one of the weaker attacks. Lets see if you can solve this one. My personal favorite out of all of them.

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot.
Or he can, but does not want to.
Or he cannot, and does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.
If he can, but does not want to, then he is wicked.
If he neither can, nor wants to, he is both powerless and wicked.

yes that is one of the weaker attacks. Lets see if you can solve this one. My personal favorite out of all of them.

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot.
Or he can, but does not want to.
Or he cannot, and does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.
If he can, but does not want to, then he is wicked.
If he neither can, nor wants to, he is both powerless and wicked.

Well, what I get from that is the old argument of "How can God allow so much pain and suffering in the world?" Is that what you're getting at spiritual_spy?

If it is, I think there's a bit of confusion here. Athesist's use the following for their arguments:

• God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect.

• A perfect, loving God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering).

• The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.

Therefore, God does not exist.

The Bible does state that God is "all powerful." The Bible also states that God is loving. The Bible also indicates that God is perfect. The next statement indicates that a perfect, loving God must create a universe that is perfect. This is the statement that is false and invalidates the argument. Nowhere does the Bible state that the universe was created to be perfect. God Himself called it "good" and "very good," but never "perfect." In fact, God Himself stated that part of the original creation was "not good." The Bible states that the current universe is not perfect, but was designed to be temporary and will be replaced with a perfect universe that will be permanent. Science also tells us that the universe was designed to be temporary.

So why would God create an imperfect, temporary universe only to replace it later with a perfect one? Why wouldn't God have created a perfect universe in the first place? Good question, but shows a lack of understanding of the biblical reason of why God created the universe. God created humans in order to have a personal relationship with them. God created the universe for the express purpose of allowing free will spiritual beings the opportunity to have fellowship with Him (and likewise, reject Him).

The Bible says that God allows temporary, bounded evil in order to allow free will beings to have the ability to love and to make choices. There's a lot of evil in the world. In fact, I think that there is too much evil in the world to be explained by naturalistic processes. The fact is that there is too much evil in the world to be explained by chaos theory or the laws of physics. Evolution provides no answers to explain the vast amount of evil done by mankind. None of the other creatures on our planet have the capacity for evil that mankind does. No other mammals kill arbitrarily. The Bible says that the presence of evil is due to the spiritual component of our nature - something that animals do not possess. God endowed His spiritual creatures with free will to love God or to oppose Him. Some people blame the evil on "society." However, society is composed of individuals who make individual choices. Most of the evil is committed by people who oppose the will of society. In contrast, there are many examples of societies in the animal kingdom, especially among the primates. None of these societies have the capacity for evil that we do. We are different from all other animals on our planet - a fact that has no scientific or evolutionary explanation.

God did not design this universe to be perfect, but as a temporary creation where free will beings make choices about where they want to spend eternity (in the new creation, which will be perfect).

So why would God create an imperfect, temporary universe only to replace it later with a perfect one? Why wouldn't God have created a perfect universe in the first place?
because he likes to torture for eternity those who worship other gods or never heard of xianity?

Good question, but shows a lack of understanding of the biblical reason of why God created the universe. God created humans in order to have a personal relationship with them.
kinda silly if you want to believe that god created EVERYTHING,which would mean we are all part of god!

God created the universe for the express purpose of allowing free will spiritual beings the opportunity to have fellowship with Him (and likewise, reject Him).

now explain the reason for NATURAL evils,such as earthquakes,tornadoes,tsunami waves,volcanic eruptions,poisonous snakes,
mallaria carrying mosquitos asian flu mad cow disease ,droughts..
evil psychopaths who molest rape torture and murder children,even their own babies...
WHERE exactly is those kids free will???

Evolution provides no answers to explain the vast amount of evil done by mankind.
actualy it does,viisit the evo/creo forum at www.infidels.org

None of the other creatures on our planet have the capacity for evil that mankind does.
WRONG again... see the above site

God did not design this universe to be perfect, but as a temporary creation where free will beings make choices about where they want to spend eternity (in the new creation, which will be perfect).
nice fantasy,too bad thats all it is

None of the other creatures on our planet have the capacity for evil that mankind does

WRONG again

Care to site some examples?

Saying that omnipotence requires the ability to do logically impossible things is stupid.

Nonsense. It is the very meaning of omnipotence. To be honest I have always thought that you religious people answer the questions wrong. Instead of saying; "god cannot do the logically impossible" - and thus in reality denying his omnipotence, when faced with the question: "Can god create a square circle?", just say: "yes, he can".

Hey, maybe your god is just a weedling, but my god can make a square circle, indeed it does so all the time. Don't ask me to explain how exactly, I'm just a human after all.

-----

Care to site some examples?

Every animal on the planet - they and we just don't consider it "evil" when they do it. Many animals, (hamsters, scorpions etc), are well known for eating their children. If you were to eat your child we'd call it "evil", but if an animal does it we just call it "nature".

The acts are no different, humans just generally regard themselves as being above and better than animals and so just ignore what the animal kingdom does. Every now and then man just proves he too is an animal - nothing more.

It is claimed that the God of the bible is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (in all places at the same time), omniscient (He knows everything), and omnibenevolent (He only does things that are all good).
Even more simply: if he knows everything then he knows the end result, i.e. those who will be saved and those who won't. So why not just skip to the Heaven bit at the end and cut out all the suffering that goes on while we exercise our free will? And just create those who are/ will be saved with the the knowledge they would have had if the thing had run full course.
No suffering of innocents and everyone gets their just desserts with the full knowledge of why they're getting them.

Nonsense. It is the very meaning of omnipotence.

Not if it's illogical it isn't.

Every animal on the planet - they and we just don't consider it "evil" when they do it. Many animals, (hamsters, scorpions etc), are well known for eating their children. If you were to eat your child we'd call it "evil", but if an animal does it we just call it "nature".

I disagree. Animals do it on a subconcious level. They do it to survive. They don't 'decide' to do it if they don't have to. Human beings, on the other hand, make the desicion to kill. It goes the same for sex. The only other species on the planet to have sex for fun besides humans are dolphins... all other animals do it for procreation only.

Not if it's illogical it isn't.

Something being 'illogical' to your fragile human brain, (that's not an insult, it's a perspective of your brain vs a god's brain), has no bearing on it being 'illogical' for an omnipotent being, which by definition can do anything - including that which seems 'illogical' to you.

I disagree. Animals do it on a subconcious level. They do it to survive. They don't 'decide' to do it if they don't have to.

They do as we do. The hamster intentionally eats it's children, it is not a case of "whoops son, how did you get in my mouth?"

Animals do things like this for several reasons. In the case of lions, they 'kill' not only for food as we do, but are quite well known for killing other young lions to prevent them from taking over his territory. Human killing is generally the same thing. A man encroaches on your territory, (sleeps with your wife), and so you kill him. It's the same thing, you just give it a different name generally because of the reason I highlighted earlier. You think you're better, you think you're different. The fact of the matter is you're an animal, just like they are.

If you know what you're looking for, you can see it everywhere you go. The way people move, dance, walk, communicate etc shows there isn't really any difference between you.

Human beings, on the other hand, make the desicion to kill.

For the same reasons animals make the decision to kill: Food, survival, encroachment upon territory etc.

It goes the same for sex. The only other species on the planet to have sex for fun besides humans are dolphins... all other animals do it for procreation only.

Maybe a hamster does bonk for 'fun', but the bitch keeps getting pregnant. Shame they don't have condoms or the pill I guess. With animals like that there is no time for fun.. An entire pregnancy lasts a little over a week and she can get pregnant again the week after that.

However, we have certainly evolved along a path where it is almost essential that sex be done for fun - (otherwise you'd get it so rarely, people would just end up marrying their hands).

It might also be interesting to point out that the god of the OT seems to prefer that humans go back to their roots and only bonk for the specific reason of having children - and not for fun. I wonder why this god would want man to be just like those animals you seemingly can't help but look down upon.

Care to site some examples?
apes
do your own research,
www.infidels.org

Something being 'illogical' to your fragile human brain, (that's not an insult, it's a perspective of your brain vs a god's brain), has no bearing on it being 'illogical' for an omnipotent being, which by definition can do anything - including that which seems 'illogical' to you.
If it's so logical that God can do anything that is possible, however impossible it might seem to us, what's the point of asking questions about things that supposedly transcend logic? Unless the OP believes he knows what is possible and impossible, how does he propose to evaluate any answers? He can't say something disproves omnipotence if he doesn't already have some thoughts about what omnipotence should be.

If logical contradictions really don't matter, it would invalidate the questions even more: It seems spiritual_spy can imagine conditions under which omnipotence is impossible, but not that an omnipotent being should then also be able not to be omnipotent (since he can do anything). So even if he asked "can God lift this 5kg rock" and someone answered "no", it would still not be an argument against omnipotence. The only limitation is spiritual_spy's inability to imagine God not being able to lift the rock and still be omnipotent.

Just because we can't imagine God both being able to do something and not being able to do something simultaneously (and I'm using your argument here) doesn't mean He can't, right? Unless the logic of our "fragile human brains" do actually mean something, and logical contradictions really are universally illogical.

apes
do your own research,
www.infidels.org

I avoid that site like the plague. They don't debate othere there - they personally attack.

Thanks anyway.

No one wants to try to take a shot at it?:D
that is the longest fucking post ive ever seen. ouch.

Spiritual_spy, that site was obviously written by someone who has no true understanding of the Bible, and is asking ignorant questions that Christian's have all heard before.


you may say that, but most christians themselves have no real understanding of the bible. most of the KJV bibles around now were made by translating the greek version of the bible that Erasmus compiled using 12th century documents that he got from some friends, some of which he translated back into greek from the latin vulgate, which was already wrong.

so this begs the question, is it more important to understand the "true" bible as it existed in the earliest forms available to us - vis a vis greek and hebrew manuscripts dating back to the 2nd - 5th centuries? or is that a pointless endeavor because the popularity of the KJV and the misconceptions it has caused christians to have about their own faith are so pervasive? would re-translating the NT to conform to a "truer" sense of original meaning actually do anything to alter the perspective of most christians?

which understanding is really more relvant? the one that is most commonly accepted - incorrect as it may be, or the "true" meaning gleaned from documents in their original languages, even though it is impossible to have access to the original of any gospel or epistle?

They do as we do. The hamster intentionally eats it's children, it is not a case of "whoops son, how did you get in my mouth?"

Animals do things like this for several reasons. In the case of lions, they 'kill' not only for food as we do, but are quite well known for killing other young lions to prevent them from taking over his territory. Human killing is generally the same thing. A man encroaches on your territory, (sleeps with your wife), and so you kill him. It's the same thing, you just give it a different name generally because of the reason I highlighted earlier. You think you're better, you think you're different. The fact of the matter is you're an animal, just like they are.

Interesting analogy, but I still disagree.

If an ape finds out that Curious George banged his girlfriend, then poor George is dead no matter what because he infringed on the said ape's territoy. The ape didn't have to decide this; it's part of his animalistic inclination. It would never cross the apes mind not to do it.

As far as the lions go, you're right, they do in fact do that. But again, they do it because that's the nature of their species. The know no other way. If they did, then they would have the conciousness to say "I am lion" or an elephant to say "I am elephant", which of course, they do not.

nice fantasy,too bad thats all it is

I hear non believers say this all the time, so I'll throw it back to you - prove me wrong.

It's like when you try to explain to a child that santa is just a made-up fantasy... They won't listen to reason because they want to believe for the emotional benefits.

Ggazoo: You and other people that are practically identical to you here, Woody, TheVisitor etc, are exposed with each post that you beleive purely for emotional benefits. Although Woody's song lyrics about the 'Lord' and his happy family singing those lyrics did have me in tears... of laughter :D

You not only believe in Santa... Oops, I mean 'God', but you belong to a particular organised religion because you are that intellectually bankrupt. You are not content with beleiving in the Flying Spag.... I mean 'God', but you associate a million other irrational, wishful guesses to that Tooth fairy... I mean 'God'.

If you have a need to believe in God, then why do you need to attatch that beleif to just one out of an unlimited number of organised faiths?

you belong to a particular organised religion because you are that intellectually bankrupt.

Now that is something which I'm tired of hearing. Christians are often characterized as people who believe whatever they are told by the church. Faith is thought of as something that one believes blindly - with no supporting evidence. However, this viewpoint does not represent biblical Christianity. In contrast, to what many skeptics believe, the Bible challenges its readers to test it and come to a reasonable conclusion. There are those Christians who believe blindly, and certain cults (such as Mormonism) teach that truth can be known through prayer. These ideas are heretical to biblical Christianity and often lead to deception, making such individuals susceptible to conversion by the cults.

And as far as your Santa Claus and Pink Unicorn analogies go, well, they just make me laugh. Most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10. People do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them feel better, we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.

God created the entire universe,including time itself, which did not exist prior to God creating it. Both Santa Claus and unicorns are contingent beings, whereas God is non-contingent. Therefore, to make an analogy between God and either Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns is logically flawed from the outset.

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better.

To answer these questions would take prior knowledge of God, and Gods charactoristics alone. How do we really know any of whats beyond what humans have wrote? You've made a step towards posting the right, i will admit. But i think you lacked the essentials to read this. How do you know that God doesn't like taking walks, and only talking to the jews, seeing as how he made it clear he could do it if he wanted too. Every point as a matter a fact that this document made, was on generalizations that humans would make, not on a matter of gods. Now i'm going to use my power of reasoning, and figure that you weren't smart enough to make your own theory, so you googled one up, and hoped for people to agree with you, or argue with you so you could google up a defense. My next use of reasoning would be that you hardly read this before posting it, because you hardly speak of the document, with a knowledgable account.

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better.

From what I have read of your posts, this is exactly why you believe in God. And yes, 'God' is a made-up concept... I can not stress that enough as it is obvious. It would have to have been divinely revealed to man through supernatural means if God isn't a man-made concept. I look forward to you saying "oh but it was divinely revealed to man"... :rolleyes:

I am also aware that Christians don't all share identical beleifs, but they share the same belief that Jesus is their savior and Bible as truth. If you deny this then tell me why you do not follow Mohammed and the Quran? Or the countless other less popular saviors and accompanying books written by 'God'.

So what then is the difference between Santa and God? Well there are very specific claims about Santa which can be put to bed when you see your parents putting the presents under the tree.

The genius about 'God' is that even if humans have perfect knowledge of the universe and no 'God' is found... The notion of 'God' is vague enough that there is still room to believe.

So I wouldn't be so quick to say this:

People do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better.

God, religion, ghosts, Loch Ness monster, Aliens visiting Earth, Astrology, palm reading, heaven, prayer, eternal life, clairvoyant's...

You know as well as I do that many/all of the above/some of those I listed above are false, yet people believe because it makes them feel good.

How is your luck? Are the things you believe in that list the ones that are true? I doubt it very much.

From what I have read of your posts, this is exactly why you believe in God. And yes, 'God' is a made-up concept... I can not stress that enough as it is obvious. It would have to have been divinely revealed to man through supernatural means if God isn't a man-made concept. I look forward to you saying "oh but it was divinely revealed to man"... :rolleyes:

I am also aware that Christians don't all share identical beleifs, but they share the same belief that Jesus is their savior and Bible as truth. If you deny this then tell me why you do not follow Mohammed and the Quran? Or the countless other less popular saviors and accompanying books written by 'God'.

So what then is the difference between Santa and God? Well there are very specific claims about Santa which can be put to bed when you see your parents putting the presents under the tree.

The genius about 'God' is that even if humans have perfect knowledge of the universe and no 'God' is found... The notion of 'God' is vague enough that there is still room to believe.

So I wouldn't be so quick to say this:



God, religion, ghosts, Loch Ness monster, Aliens visiting Earth, Astrology, palm reading, heaven, prayer, eternal life, clairvoyant's...
Nice.. :D You shouldnt be so hard on them kenny, believers are fragile creatures. :p

Nice.. :D You shouldnt be so hard on them kenny, believers are fragile creatures. :p

Don't worry about it spy... in regards to Kenny's arguments, I've heard them all before. :rolleyes:

From what I have read of your posts, this is exactly why you believe in God. And yes, 'God' is a made-up concept... I can not stress that enough as it is obvious. It would have to have been divinely revealed to man through supernatural means if God isn't a man-made concept. I look forward to you saying "oh but it was divinely revealed to man"... :rolleyes:

Oh, and you say this because? Wait, is it because if you where a god you would make everything different? Try to balance two things for me real quick though, if you can of course. Balance peace and free will. I don't see how it could be hard, but go ahead try your best shot.





The genius about 'God' is that even if humans have perfect knowledge of the universe and no 'God' is found... The notion of 'God' is vague enough that there is still room to believe.

So I wouldn't be so quick to say this:



God, religion, ghosts, Loch Ness monster, Aliens visiting Earth, Astrology, palm reading, heaven, prayer, eternal life, clairvoyant's...

You know as well as I do that many/all of the above/some of those I listed above are false, yet people believe because it makes them feel good.

How is your luck? Are the things you believe in that list the ones that are true? I doubt it very much.


Ohh going for the old religous crutch routine. Well how do you know if religions mental relieving abilities are more or less an after effect from the reilgion, and not a sub concious state of mind?

Oh, and you say this because? Wait, is it because if you where a god you would make everything different? Try to balance two things for me real quick though, if you can of course. Balance peace and free will. I don't see how it could be hard, but go ahead try your best shot.




Ohh going for the old religous crutch routine. Well how do you know if religions mental relieving abilities are more or less an after effect from the reilgion, and not a sub concious state of mind?
Easy. Give the the power to choose but first show them what will happen if they disobey. (Show them a veiw of hell and give them a brief moment in hell to just get a taste) then say if you obey you you stay here in paradise. When someone disobeys instead of allowing it to spread, toss him into the fire. Destroy the virus before it spreads. Simplicty.

Easy. Give the the power to choose but first show them what will happen if they disobey. (Show them a veiw of hell and give them a brief moment in hell to just get a taste) then say if you obey you you stay here in paradise. When someone disobeys instead of allowing it to spread, toss him into the fire. Destroy the virus before it spreads. Simplicty.


I'm sure your followers would find such redemption under your reign, sad enough to say you would do this.

In short you can not obtain peace with free will, it cannot be possible unless 6 billion people decide to agree on one thing, and look at 4 people here who can barely agree on this.

I'm sure your followers would find such redemption under your reign, sad enough to say you would do this.
Yes i would. I wouldnt use the "well one of you sinned so i am going to make billions suffer for your mistake" logic".

Yes i would. I wouldnt use the "well one of you sinned so i am going to make billions suffer for your mistake" logic".


I suppose your logic would make sense, the day only 1 person out of 6 billion sinned. I think the numbers are more accurate the way the bible goes, atleast it seemed like you were saying this. Well let me be the first to tell you the christian bible doesn't punish billions for one, but billions for billions, roughly the exact same number. The only thing is, they are given their whole life to be with god.

I suppose your logic would make sense, the day only 1 person out of 6 billion sinned. I think the numbers are more accurate the way the bible goes, atleast it seemed like you were saying this. Well let me be the first to tell you the christian bible doesn't punish billions for one, but billions for billions, roughly the exact same number. The only thing is, they are given their whole life to be with god.
No the God of the bible does this. Adam and eve sinned. Instead of just letting the curse stay on them he curses all there decendants for crimes they didnt even commit. fast foward a few thousand years. You have mass genocide, wars, murders, rapes, and almost every other horror you can imagine. All a result of the sins of TWO people. Just? I dont think so.

No the God of the bible does this. Adam and eve sinned. Instead of just letting the curse stay on them he curses all there decendants for crimes they didnt even commit. fast foward a few thousand years. You have mass genocide, wars, murders, rapes, and almost every other horror you can imagine. All a result of the sins of TWO people. Just? I dont think so.


Yes he did punish mankind, for Adam and Eves actions, but he gave them a fair warning. The test of adam eating the apple was deaper then just him doing it, it was a test of mankind. Most men would have eaten the apple, and with a naked girl sitting in front of you encouraging it i imagine it wasn't any easier. Besides after eating the apple he gave mankind the knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong, therefor they didn't need to live in the garden anymore.


With the mass genocide to be gods fault or the rape or murder, you would have to tell me how god interfered with their free will to commit such actions, and then i would really like to know what his motive was.

You forget. before Sin adam and eve were still pure & ignorant. God just tells them if you eat you die. Im pretty sure if god would have have shown them what would happen if they ate the apple (Ie the horrors of humanity today) they wouldnt of went anywere near that damned tree. Any sane man wouldnt. It is Gods fualt for not stopping the horror before it was unleashed instead he just let i run about and let billions suffer.

You forget. before Sin adam and eve were still pure & ignorant. God just tells them if you eat you die. Im pretty sure if god would have have shown them what would happen if they ate the apple (Ie the horrors of humanity today) they wouldnt of went anywere near that damned tree. Any sane man wouldnt. It is Gods fualt for not stopping the horror before it was unleashed instead he just let i run about and let billions suffer.


You forget about free will, you see god gave us the choice, to walk with him, or be sinners. Adam made the choice, and we sit here because of it. But i fail to see any logic in this, because god didn't do anything to disprove his own existance, rather then make you disagree with his actions. It's still funny to see people fight religion with charactoristics of mankind, and not having any knowledge of what a true god is. All you know is what man has written about god. No one but the few who get to join him in heaven knows why or what made him decide to do anything. So when i stop to see you disagree with this, i can only think you just dont know what to agree with.

So a man with little knowledge of what he was doing made a choice so now all of us have to suffer for it? i still fail to see what is just in that. i mean we are all labeled as sinners at birth becuase of the original sin even though we had no choice in the matter. Plus here is another problem with God. He communicated to all mankind from anceint people who to put it lightly were savages and expects me, a person who lives in the modern age with science and reason, to believe in a bunch of anceint texts which supports a god who ordered the sluaghter of entire cities and who destroyed all mankind in a massive flood but decided to let one man and his family live. I mean WTF?
He expects us to believe tales from a bunch of savages?

So a man with little knowledge of what he was doing made a choice so now all of us have to suffer for it? i still fail to see what is just in that. i mean we are all labeled as sinners at birth becuase of the original sin even though we had no choice in the matter. Plus here is another problem with God. He communicated to all mankind from anceint people who to put it lightly were savages and expects me, a person who lives in the modern age with science and reason, to believe in a bunch of anceint texts which supports a god who ordered the sluaghter of entire cities and who destroyed all mankind in a massive flood but decided to let one man and his family live. I mean WTF?
He expects us to believe tales from a bunch of savages?


Adam knew what he was doing, god gave him the knowledge to know the reprecutions of his actions of eating the apple. It's not like he was a walking idiot, he knew he needed a companion, which god gave him. God gave him everything he needed to live peaceful but as you have yet to notice, free will just doesn't seem to work out well with peace. So it was bound to fail no matter WHO was in the garden of eve. Basically it was a test of the inevitable, and we were all bound to lvie this way dispite the fact we could have lived in the garden of eve. Yes he flooded the world of evils, and let Noah, a man who never commited any wrongs, a truelly pure person to live. So this goes back to where he saves the rightious and destroying the evil. Wow doesn't that sound sort of simular to your idea. But even so it failed to save peace in the world, because men are sinners. So tell me what part do you still not get?

Adam knew what he was doing, god gave him the knowledge to know the reprecutions of his actions of eating the apple. It's not like he was a walking idiot, he knew he needed a companion, which god gave him. God gave him everything he needed to live peaceful but as you have yet to notice, free will just doesn't seem to work out well with peace. So it was bound to fail no matter WHO was in the garden of eve. Basically it was a test of the inevitable, and we were all bound to lvie this way dispite the fact we could have lived in the garden of eve. Yes he flooded the world of evils, and let Noah, a man who never commited any wrongs, a truelly pure person to live. So this goes back to where he saves the rightious and destroying the evil. Wow doesn't that sound sort of simular to your idea. But even so it failed to save peace in the world, because men are sinners. So tell me what part do you still not get?
So telling him if you eat you die is telling him the full force of his actions? And i seriously doubt that Noah was the only good man on earth. Even at the level of corruption today there are still lots of good people. So unless things worse than thefollowing things happened God wasnt justified.
1.Mass genocide
2.Wars
3.massive levels of adultry and sexual perversion
4.Murders
5.Destruction of the enviroment

All of this is present today yet there is still good people. (And remeber we are supposed to be heading toward the end times the worst period of human history) And your telling me that the only good person was Noah? I doubt it.

And you still didnt touch on my my statement about the the beleif in savages.

The free will argument is an annoying one. The theist is limited only to the fact that true free will exists as is commonly described by religions... People who objectively think about it on the other hand come to different possabilities:

1. God created everything and had perfect knowledge of past and future events - We are in effect puppets the same way pacman is to us.

2. God does not exist - but even so do we still have free will? We are just following our nero pattern and chemical/genetic makeup.

It does seem like free will exists because it is apparent that I have a choice in what to type... But what theists miss is that when you bypass the macroscopic view and think about all the things that contribute to our choice... can it be described as true free will even without knowledge of possible Godly external factors?

The whole 'evil' thing is irrelevant. Evil is a perception depending on the cultural notions in a society. Evil has nothing to do with 'free will' in my opinion.

So telling him if you eat you die is telling him the full force of his actions? And i seriously doubt that Noah was the only good man on earth. Even at the level of corruption today there are still lots of good people. So unless things worse than thefollowing things happened God wasnt justified.
1.Mass genocide
2.Wars
3.massive levels of adultry and sexual perversion
4.Murders
5.Destruction of the enviroment

All of this is present today yet there is still good people. (And remeber we are supposed to be heading toward the end times the worst period of human history) And your telling me that the only good person was Noah? I doubt it.

And you still didnt touch on my my statement about the the beleif in savages.


Well if god told you to not eat the apple, or you would be cast aside from the garden of eve, isn't a good enough warning for you. Well i guess it makes sense, seeing as i am still here talking to you about this.

So i would like to know, where i said all people alive where bad. I said they were sinners. There is nothing wrong with being a sinner, with the bible standars of sin, it is a common thing to commit. But you have the choice to do it or not. It's not gods fault if you do it. It's yours. I didn't exactly say Noah was the only pure person, i just said he was a good person.

Have you ever heard the quote, "Rome wasn't built in a day."? I wonder, because with your reasoning you assume we where born with technology, and were born with civilization. The reason god talked to the jews isn't clear at all, and is almost outragous of you to ask any human. That is something only he knows himself, and i don't have any knowledge of it. But i'm sure you know so much more. Seeing as how you have the divine plan. Either way, after all this you have made no real clear points, and have wasted little time doing it. But it's kinda funny, to see people try to answer these questions, or blow other peoples thoughts and opinion as the final say. Before i feel it is of any use to go on, answer me one question correctly. What do gods do, when they have all the power in the world?

No actualy it isnt. if my parents told me as a child to stay away from the cookie jar or i wouldnt be barred from the kitchen i would have did it anyways. That is exactly what adam and eve were. Children. they were without knowledge of good and evil remeber?
God killed them all becuase they were sinners. So what about all the other good people in the world at the time? Did he say well to hell with them i only need one? And no i dont assume we were born with tech but the point is your dealing with savage ideals.
And those ideals still echo today in the middle east. Thats why you see people getting blown up by shells while they sit on a beach and why rockets land in the middle of schools and why suicide bombers kill innocent people. And to awnser your qestion about what would god do if he had all the power in the world. If he was God he would be content with his own perfection becuase he needs nothing nor desires nothing and is without nothing. Which is the general definition of a perfect being.

Well here is the big finisher, take it for what you will. Free will is only controlled by mans actions, and god will take no actions in it.

While your answer was atleast somewhat good, it lacked one thing. The fact that it is only a guess, a guess from mens generalizations about god. There isn't much you can do in your lifetime to answer that question. My only guess would be, whatever he felt like doing, at the given time. Wouldn't it be funny if he was just a big kid with a magnifying glass and we're just ants. Either way it doesn't refute his ultimate power to decide whether or not where we end up, or his inability to exist. All it even suggests is god does what he wants to do, sort of like free will. His free will in which you choose to disagree with, just like everyone else with free will.

If a god exists he isnt one worth worshipping. Even if he did create us. Kinda like your magnifiying glass analogy.

I hear non believers say this all the time, so I'll throw it back to you - prove me wrong.
no need to,believe what you wish ,just dont expect us to ACCEPT this religious rubish as The Truth which youd even like to teach in every school,aint gonna happen!

God created the entire universe,including time itself, which did not exist prior to God creating it.
IMPOSIBLE,without time god couldnt have created anything,because it takes time for anything to happen,even a thought pasing in your head takes time.

actualy the truth is more like ;the universe always existed,no creator needed !

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better.
careful...isnt lying a SIN in your book?
WHY would you believe otherwise?

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better.
So god is a made up figure, right?

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better.
And the same goes for other faiths since they reject god and pick deity (i.e. fantasy figure) X, Y or Z. God just got better (and certainly more vociferous) publicity over the older fantasies and in the West.

If it's so logical that God can do anything that is possible, however impossible it might seem to us, what's the point of asking questions about things that supposedly transcend logic?

No idea, ask the person that asks those kind of questions.

Unless the OP believes he knows what is possible and impossible, how does he propose to evaluate any answers?

Quite simply by looking at the meaning of the word omnipotent. If a being is 'all powerful', there can be no time that it wouldn't be able to do something, (no matter how illogical we see it as being).

If you, a human, say "god is omnipotent", then the minute you say he can't do something, your original claim falls apart.

He can't say something disproves omnipotence if he doesn't already have some thoughts about what omnipotence should be.

Which of course he would have because it's a human word.

It seems spiritual_spy can imagine conditions under which omnipotence is impossible, but not that an omnipotent being should then also be able not to be omnipotent (since he can do anything).

If the argument is "can an omnipotent being....", and the answer is ever "no", then by definition, that being isn't omnipotent. You could always answer; "yes, and it can also choose not to do it".

So even if he asked "can God lift this 5kg rock" and someone answered "no", it would still not be an argument against omnipotence.

Yes it would. By definition, the minute no is used, 'omnipotence' is redundant.

Just because we can't imagine God both being able to do something and not being able to do something simultaneously (and I'm using your argument here) doesn't mean He can't, right?

You're not using my argument, indeed it seems you didn't grasp it, but if it is omnipotent then it can do anything. If you say "it can't", then you remove omnipotence as one of it's attributes.

--------

As far as the lions go, you're right, they do in fact do that. But again, they do it because that's the nature of their species.

And you do what you do because it's your nature to do them.

The know no other way.

But they do. There are many instances of animals doing things against what would be the typical action for that animal - much the same as humans.

then they would have the conciousness to say "I am lion" or an elephant to say "I am elephant", which of course, they do not

An animals inability to speak English isn't an issue. Animals, (including us), all communicate with each other - and most do it a lot more impressively than we do. They also use body language just like we do.

To Snakelord, interesting comments on being omnipotent. But assuming it was correct, wouldn't it take prior knowledge as to why god would ever say no? Possibly the correct path was saying no. Like if the lord said i cannot grant you into heaven, because you're a sinner, or i cannot interact with your free will, because i have given you the right to make your own choices. Which isn't quite saying he couldn't do it. But saying he wont do it, because it goes against his own morals, and guidelines.

To Snakelord, interesting comments on being omnipotent. But assuming it was correct, wouldn't it take prior knowledge as to why god would ever say no? Possibly the correct path was saying no. Like if the lord said i cannot grant you into heaven, because you're a sinner, or i cannot interact with your free will, because i have given you the right to make your own choices. Which isn't quite saying he couldn't do it. But saying he wont do it, because it goes against his own morals, and guidelines.
I think SnakeLord is simply saying that the claim of omnipotence by theists completely dissallows the statement by them (during logical debates) "god can't..." whatever. This is completely different from god choosing to do or not do a thing.

I think SnakeLord is simply saying that the claim of omnipotence by theists completely dissallows the statement by them (during logical debates) "god can't..." whatever. This is completely different from god choosing to do or not do a thing.


Okay, well then i would like to see where god couldn't do something, with proof of course, rather then a mans statement,

Okay, well then i would like to see where god couldn't do something, with proof of course, rather then a mans statement,
for some strange reason, you keep asking for proof, as to how a thing which has no evidence for existence, could/could'nt do something.
that's redundant and infantile.
snakelord, oli, spirtual spy, superliminal, and scorpius, are discussing god they have no believe it exists,just that the things atributed to it are foolish thus make the believe in a god foolish.
(none of us could be absolutely sure it does'nt exist, however the evidence for it's existence is non-existent too, so it is irrational to have a belief in a god/fantasy)
you being the one that believes, have to accept that the onus is on you, for you are the one asserting something/god exists in the first place.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

Possibly the correct path was saying no.

From a choice perspective: yes and no.

1) Yes, god can say no - can choose not to do something, (that's not really what I was getting at with my earlier post, {as pointed out by Superluminal})

2) an omniscient god would already know whether it's going to say yes or no, and as such actually doesn't have a choice in the matter.

A while back I was writing a story about this man who has a serious car crash. Next thing he knows he's in a room where god and satan are sitting at a table with a chess board. The man walks up, looks at the untouched chess board, and says; "Aren't any of you going to make a move?", to which god says; "There's no point, I already know who wins".

Omniscience and omnipotence as we know them cause a serious dilemma when put together. While the omnipotence gives this god the ability to do anything, the fact that it knows everything it ever will do negates the value of that omnipotence, and it instantly has no say in what it can or can't do. It is confined by what it will do and leaves it with no freedom to do anything else.

It also ends up negating any discussion between atheists and religious folk when it comes down to all those "couldn't god have.." questions. Examples, which are commonly used:

"couldn't god have removed the snake from the garden of eden?"

"couldn't god have saved all the people on 9/11 if he's all loving?"

The answer is undoubtedly 'no'. The fact that he would already know that he doesn't, means he can't - so to come back to the start:

If a god is 'omnipotent', then yes - it can do anything, even making that which we consider illogical and impossible.

If a god is omnipotent and omniscient then while it theoretically has the ability to do anything, it doesn't actually have the ability to do anything other than that which it already knows it will do. In this instance, no.. god cannot make a square circle or answer someone's prayer, or kill satan, or remove evil from the world or anything else unless it is part of what it already knows it's going to do - in which case it also wouldn't have a choice in not doing them. It would have to do or not do that which it knows it's already going to do or not do.

In simple terms: I'd like to know why nobody sees the double standard here.

By SnakeLord's own admission, omnipotent is a human word (or more accurately, a philosophical construct), that relies on human logic. The definition cannot somehow transcend our logic or our abilities, because it owes its existence to them. Nobody should have any problems recognizing that.

But suddenly, when this word is applied to God, all the human logic that gives the word any meaning is mysteriously left out of the equation, and "God" should be able to do what "omnipotence" (by definition) doesn't allow - logical contradictions - supposedly in order to be omnipotent. A double standard.

If the definition of "omnipotence" (A) must necessarily exclude "not being omnipotent" (A'), that is a logical limitation put on "omnipotence". When the definition "omnipotence" is carried over on an object that will be subjected to logical scrutiny ("God" in this case), the definitions should stay the same for the experiment to remain valid, and the same logic applied to omnipotence should apply to God. That's supposedly the argument, but nobody notices that the logic used to create the definition of omnipotence (A excludes A') has slipped out the back door when that "omnipotence" is measured. Now (goes the reasoning) God's omnipotence (A) should be able to include logical limitations A' (such as creating a rock too big for him to lift or a square circle) - a line of reasoning which I argued would bring down the whole house of cards on your head, since such a definition of omnipotence would in any case allow him to be simultaneously omnipotent and non-omnipotent.

God being logically precluded from doing something (the word "unable" is misleading) does not limit his actual (and logical) omnipotence - more or less the same way artists are not limited by an inability to paint in non-existent colours.

Surely somebody else here sees this?

Omniscience and omnipotence as we know them cause a serious dilemma when put together. While the omnipotence gives this god the ability to do anything, the fact that it knows everything it ever will do negates the value of that omnipotence, and it instantly has no say in what it can or can't do. It is confined by what it will do and leaves it with no freedom to do anything else.
Knowledge of freedom doesn't negate freedom. Knowing what a decision would be or lead to doesn't negate the decision - even if, in retrospect (or in "omnispect") the decisions have already been made. Without substance, there is also no appearance. Without an actual act or decision (no matter how certain), there is nothing to know. If God's nature determines his decisions, it only means He is consistent (or unchanging, as the Bible claims), not that there isn't any nature or any decisions (at least not from our perspective - I don't see a problem if God never has any doubt about what He will do. If He determines his decisions, He determines them. So do we).

A set course does not by itself preclude the existence or possibility of other courses, even if they are never followed. A determined course (or set of constants) only excludes non-determined courses (or variables), it doesn't preclude them - that's perhaps the only reason why decisions (which are made among choices, real or illusionary) carry any significance at all.

In simple terms: I'd like to know why nobody sees the double standard here.

By SnakeLord's own admission, omnipotent is a human word (or more accurately, a philosophical construct), that relies on human logic. The definition cannot somehow transcend our logic or our abilities, because it owes its existence to them. Nobody should have any problems recognizing that.

But suddenly, when this word is applied to God, all the human logic that gives the word any meaning is mysteriously left out of the equation, and "God" should be able to do what "omnipotence" (by definition) doesn't allow - logical contradictions - supposedly in order to be omnipotent. A double standard.

If the definition of "omnipotence" (A) must necessarily exclude "not being omnipotent" (A'), that is a logical limitation put on "omnipotence". When the definition "omnipotence" is carried over on an object that will be subjected to logical scrutiny ("God" in this case), the definitions should stay the same for the experiment to remain valid, and the same logic applied to omnipotence should apply to God. That's supposedly the argument, but nobody notices that the logic used to create the definition of omnipotence (A excludes A') has slipped out the back door when that "omnipotence" is measured. Now (goes the reasoning) God's omnipotence (A) should be able to include logical limitations A' (such as creating a rock too big for him to lift or a square circle) - a line of reasoning which I argued would bring down the whole house of cards on your head, since such a definition of omnipotence would in any case allow him to be simultaneously omnipotent and non-omnipotent.

God being logically precluded from doing something (the word "unable" is misleading) does not limit his actual (and logical) omnipotence - more or less the same way artists are not limited by an inability to paint in non-existent colours.

Surely somebody else here sees this?
Yes. Nicely presented.

By SnakeLord's own admission, omnipotent is a human word (or more accurately, a philosophical construct), that relies on human logic. The definition cannot somehow transcend our logic or our abilities, because it owes its existence to them. Nobody should have any problems recognizing that.

The definition of omnipotent does 'transcend our abilities' - which funnily enough means we're not omnipotent. The word exists to point at that which can do anything, which by definition includes that which to us is seemingly impossible or illogical.

You always point out the really daft: "By SnakeLord's own admission, omnipotent is a human word".. Did you honestly think anyone would believe I was claiming it was a Klingon word?

But that word, (yes, a human word duh), is there to define a being or entity that can do anything - yes Jenyar, even that which is illogical as far as you see it.

But suddenly, when this word is applied to God

What other entity would the word be applied to? There was nothing 'sudden' about it.

all the human logic that gives the word any meaning is mysteriously left out of the equation

Certainly, why would human logic be a factor in godly ability? We use the word to define that which can do anything - clearly including that which humans cannot do and cannot even comprehend.

"God" should be able to do what "omnipotence" (by definition) doesn't allow - logical contradictions

How does omnipotence not allow that which is illogical to humans?

If the definition of "omnipotence" (A) must necessarily exclude "not being omnipotent" (A'), that is a logical limitation put on "omnipotence".

Not exactly. If a being is omnipotent then it isn't 'not omnipotent', but it's omnipotence wouldn't stop it from being able to be 'not omnipotent' if it wanted to. The omnipotence itself hasn't had limitations put on it - unless omnipotence has changed meaning so instead of being able to do anything it now means has to have different abilities at the same time.

When the definition "omnipotence" is carried over on an object that will be subjected to logical scrutiny ("God" in this case), the definitions should stay the same for the experiment to remain valid, and the same logic applied to omnipotence should apply to God.

The definition has remained the same the whole time. A being that is able to do anything is not constrained from doing that which you consider to be impossible.

That's supposedly the argument, but nobody notices that the logic used to create the definition of omnipotence (A excludes A')

But A excluding A isn't of any relevance. A black omnipotent god is clearly not a white omnipotent god, but it could make itself white if it wanted to, or a mixture of white and black, or white and black at the same time or yellow with pink polka dots.

God's omnipotence (A) should be able to include logical limitations A' (such as creating a rock too big for him to lift or a square circle) - a line of reasoning which I argued would bring down the whole house of cards on your head, since such a definition of omnipotence would in any case allow him to be simultaneously omnipotent and non-omnipotent.

An omnipotent being could if it so chose. Don't try and understand how, you're just a human.

----------

Knowledge of freedom doesn't negate freedom. Knowing what a decision would be or lead to doesn't negate the decision - even if, in retrospect (or in "omnispect") the decisions have already been made.

I didn't say it negated the decision, just the value of omnipotence. If you sat down with an omnipotent being and said: "dude, make a talking, green cow", it could do it - but if you said the same to an omnipotent being that already knows it's not going to, the worth of that omnipotence, from a human perspective - (before you go ahead and point out that I'm just giving you a human perspective, as if you thought I was a martian), is negated. I never personally appreciated omniscience, as my 'chess board' sentence points out - or indeed as seen in Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose, (an X Files episode). Clyde can basically see how everyone dies. I can't remember the exact line which is a bit of a shame, but it basically comes down to "why get up every morning?". I think what I was getting at is the inability to be spontaneous.

The definition of omnipotent does 'transcend our abilities' - which funnily enough means we're not omnipotent. The word exists to point at that which can do anything, which by definition includes that which to us is seemingly impossible or illogical.

You always point out the really daft: "By SnakeLord's own admission, omnipotent is a human word".. Did you honestly think anyone would believe I was claiming it was a Klingon word?

But that word, (yes, a human word duh), is there to define a being or entity that can do anything - yes Jenyar, even that which is illogical as far as you see it.
It was a rather silly way to put it, but the way you use the word almost necessitates it. By drawing attention to your own realization that it's an intrinsically human word, I want to point out that its definition and usage doesn't depend on God, and that you apparently recognize this. The definition (the "defining" of the word) doesn't transcend us - the defined word only indicates something that transcends us. The definition of omniscience doesn't transcend us, but omniscience, as we have defined it, does. That's the power of language.

In other words, it's not in the first place a word that "defines a being or entity that can do anything", but a word we've defined, as if in a lab. That we use it to express divine power is not a problem, as long as we keep our reasoning consistent.

What other entity would the word be applied to? There was nothing 'sudden' about it.
"Sudden" in the sense that the rules seem to change from where we've constructed it philosophically and where it's being put into use.

You have to realize that we're not actually deducing these definitions from God, but inducing it on a philosophical deity, one that either conforms or contradicts our definition of the word. The result is a theory, not a reality. And if a theory proves contradictory, we only prove ourselves wrong.

Certainly, why would human logic be a factor in godly ability? We use the word to define that which can do anything - clearly including that which humans cannot do and cannot even comprehend.
Obviously I agree. That's why I have a problem with it when someone assumes his definition of omnipotence can somehow be used to prove God isn't omnipotent by any definition.

How does omnipotence not allow that which is illogical to humans?
An omnipotent God might easily manage something that seems illogical to us on the surface, such as becoming fully man yet remaining fully God. But "omnipotence", as far as our ability to comprehend and measure it goes, is limited to its logical construction. If our argument excludes logical contradictions, it should still do so when we discuss God. If our definition allows logical contradictions, then again, so would a discussion about God. But to change the rules halfway is a kind of philosophical bait and switch.

Not exactly. If a being is omnipotent then it isn't 'not omnipotent', but it's omnipotence wouldn't stop it from being able to be 'not omnipotent' if it wanted to. The omnipotence itself hasn't had limitations put on it - unless omnipotence has changed meaning so instead of being able to do anything it now means has to have different abilities at the same time.
Precisely (although I don't see that being able to do anything and having different abilities at the same time are mutually exclusive and imply a change of meaning). I didn't say the logical limitation limits God - as I explained above as well - but it does limit us. It sets the meaning, and that meaning should remain logically consistent. This highlights the importance of agreeing on a definition beforehand, which the OP hasn't done (eg. "all-powerful" isn't a definition of omnipotence - see fallacy of definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_definition)). Your definition was much more clear and consistent.

The definition has remained the same the whole time. A being that is able to do anything is not constrained from doing that which you consider to be impossible.
And that would invalidate any argument which goes: A) Omnipotence means ; B) God can't [insert illogical action]; therefore C) God isn't omnipotent. The definition in A relies on logic, and if the logic has changed or is discarded in B, the definition becomes meaningless and C is invalid, whatever it is.

I have a problem with the assertion that God should be able to do genuinely illogical things (as could well be supposed in a philosophical argument), because we only have our logic to go by, but I see no reason why [i]He shouldn't be able to do apparently illogical things (which doesn't explain why skeptics often claim these make God himself illogical).

There are definite examples we can imagine that are illogical, and which a logical definition of omnipotence wouldn't allow, but this has everything to do with our logic and little or nothing to do with God's actual abilities.

But A excluding A isn't of any relevance. A black omnipotent god is clearly not a white omnipotent god, but it could make itself white if it wanted to, or a mixture of white and black, or white and black at the same time or yellow with pink polka dots.
It becomes relevant when it's used in an argument, which you might not be doing, but it does happen.

An omnipotent being could if it so chose. Don't try and understand how, you're just a human.
It's because we're human that we try to understand. Whether we can is usually besides the point. If we are in the image of God, then to be human is nothing to be ashamed of (muddying the image would be).

I didn't say it negated the decision, just the value of omnipotence. If you sat down with an omnipotent being and said: "dude, make a talking, green cow", it could do it - but if you said the same to an omnipotent being that already knows it's not going to, the worth of that omnipotence, from a human perspective - (before you go ahead and point out that I'm just giving you a human perspective, as if you thought I was a martian), is negated. I never personally appreciated omniscience, as my 'chess board' sentence points out - or indeed as seen in Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose, (an X Files episode). Clyde can basically see how everyone dies. I can't remember the exact line which is a bit of a shame, but it basically comes down to "why get up every morning?". I think what I was getting at is the inability to be spontaneous.
Like I said, it's important to be aware of our human perspective because of its implications on what we're saying. Maybe omnipotence and omniscience has no value for God. The only reason the concepts have any significance is because of what they could mean for us - not for God. It matters that God can do even what seems impossible to us, and that's what the Bible authors asserted.

If we can't conceive of having purpose while knowing everything about something, it only shows we're not God - and probably why He didn't want Adam and Eve to gain "the knowledge of good and evil". The same could apply to unlimited power, such as God discouraged at Babel. Those who benefit from and rely on God's omniscience and omnipotence value it, and those who don't benefit by them, won't. The same might be said about God.

So a man with little knowledge of what he was doing made a choice so now all of us have to suffer for it? i still fail to see what is just in that.
It's not just, that's why it's called "sin". And one of the reasons God hates it is because it's so selfish - it affects everybody after you. Adam burned down the house we were supposed to live in. He shouldn't have, and God told him not to, but he did. Seeing all the generations after him suffering because of his actions would not have made any difference if even the thought of his own suffering did not dissuade him. He found a way to justify it, and no sin since then has been any different.

You have to realize that we're not actually deducing these definitions from God, but inducing it on a philosophical deity, one that either conforms or contradicts our definition of the word.

That definition being all powerful - the ability to do anything. If it contradicts that definition of the word, find a new word.

The result is a theory, not a reality

When talking about gods, there's no such thing as "reality", and nor are there 'theories', just assumptions. The assumption to many is that god is omnipotent - which means it can do anything.

That's why I have a problem with it when someone assumes his definition of omnipotence can somehow be used to prove God isn't omnipotent by any definition

Who did that? I stated that if god is omnipotent by definition, then it can do anything. It's other people here putting limits on an omnipotent god's abilities. I already said my god can do everything and anything - logical or not.

I point you to Superluminal's remark in the hope it helps: "I think SnakeLord is simply saying that the claim of omnipotence by theists completely dissallows the statement by them (during logical debates) "god can't..." whatever."

But "omnipotence", as far as our ability to comprehend and measure it goes, is limited to its logical construction.

It's very simple. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. Whether we understand the absolute depth of anything isn't relevant to any being that is omnipotent and can do anything whether we understand it or not.

But to change the rules halfway is a kind of philosophical bait and switch.

Who's changed the rules? I stated that omnipotence allows a being to do anything, little more.

I didn't say the logical limitation limits God - as I explained above as well - but it does limit us. It sets the meaning, and that meaning should remain logically consistent.

Then you're debating with me for little reason. The meaning has at all times remained 'logically consistent'. It is logical to state that a being that can do anything, can also do the illogical. It is illogical to state a being that can do anything, can't do something.

This highlights the importance of agreeing on a definition beforehand, which the OP hasn't done (eg. "all-powerful" isn't a definition of omnipotence - see fallacy of definition)

All powerful is a definition of omnipotence - see the dictionary

(Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.)

And that would invalidate any argument which goes: A) Omnipotence means [insert logical definition]; B) God can't [insert illogical action]; therefore C) God isn't omnipotent. The definition in A relies on logic, and if the logic has changed or is discarded in B, the definition becomes meaningless and C is invalid, whatever it is.

Certainly. As I have tried to tell you several times now, an omnipotent god can do anything - illogical or otherwise, and thus "B" is non existant. To quote Superluminal once more:

"I think SnakeLord is simply saying that the claim of omnipotence by theists completely dissallows the statement by them (during logical debates) "god can't...""

I have a problem with the assertion that God should be able to do genuinely illogical things

I noticed. Ye of little faith. An omnipotent being can do anything. Oh and btw, "genuinely illogical" doesn't mean much coming from a human.

which a logical definition of omnipotence wouldn't allow

The definition of omnipotence allows anything. To add "wouldn't allow" is an illogical thing to say as far as omnipotence is concerned.

It becomes relevant when it's used in an argument, which you might not be doing, but it does happen.

No, it isn't relevant. Superluminal once more, (clearly he phrased it better than I can):

"I think SnakeLord is simply saying that the claim of omnipotence by theists completely dissallows the statement by them (during logical debates) "god can't..." whatever. This is completely different from god choosing to do or not do a thing."

Your statement was:

"If the definition of "omnipotence" (A) must necessarily exclude "not being omnipotent" (A'), that is a logical limitation put on "omnipotence". "

This is wrong. Saying that an omnipotent being isn't not an omnipotent being doesn't put limits on it's omnipotence because it could still be a not omnipotent being if it wanted to.

It's because we're human that we try to understand. Whether we can is usually besides the point. If we are in the image of God, then to be human is nothing to be ashamed of (muddying the image would be).

I think there's nothing to be ashamed of even though we're not 'in the image' of some god - other than the belief that we're in the image of some god which is quite shameful as far as I see it.

The only reason the concepts have any significance is because of what they could mean for us - not for God.

Certainly, and when we define a being as omnipotent, we are saying it can do anything. You can't then turn around and say that being can't do such and such - because it contradicts the claim of omnipotence.

Oh and btw, "genuinely illogical" doesn't mean much coming from a human.
On the contrary, that's the only time it actually means something. By "genuinely illogical" I simply mean formal logical impossibilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility) (as opposed to popular or seemingly illogical ones). If we set the boundaries ourselves, we can tell with perfect certainty what falls inside or outside them.

For example, you stated that God can do anything because He is omnipotent, but can't because he is omniscient (He can only do what he knows he will do, nothing else). By doing that you are violating your definition of God's omnipotence. That means He can do the things he knows won't do, even if He never does.

Your statement was:

"If the definition of "omnipotence" (A) must necessarily exclude "not being omnipotent" (A'), that is a logical limitation put on "omnipotence". "

This is wrong. Saying that an omnipotent being isn't not an omnipotent being doesn't put limits on it's omnipotence because it could still be a not omnipotent being if it wanted to.
You're still not following me. The limitation is on the concept omnipotence, not the being. The rest of what you say is exactly what I said myself: "such a definition of omnipotence would ... allow God to be simultaneously omnipotent and non-omnipotent."

I'm not disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreement. As I said, your definition was perfectly consistent with your use of it. But not everyone here uses their definition consistently. There are two basic definitions here: one where omnipotence allows logical contradictions, and one where it doesn't. They're being used interchangeably without anybody seeming to care, as long as their point is made.

In the second case, many people do turn around and say God can't do such and such (or hasn't), and therefore He can't be omnipotent. If you're not one of those people, then clearly my argument isn't with you.

I'm not disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreement. As I said, your definition was perfectly consistent with your use of it.

Certainly. Would just be nice if people wouldn't use the word and then add "can't" somewhere at the end of the sentence as the two completely contradict each other.

But not everyone here uses their definition consistently.

I know, I was trying to explain that to them.

There are two basic definitions here: one where omnipotence allows logical contradictions, and one where it doesn't.

Only one of those is valid.

They're being used interchangeably without anybody seeming to care, as long as their point is made.

I care, that's why I've been pointing it out to them.

In the second case, many people do turn around and say God can't do such and such (or hasn't), and therefore He can't be omnipotent. If you're not one of those people, then clearly my argument isn't with you.

Then clearly it isn't. My first response here was to say that believers in omnipotent gods might as well just say "yes he/she/it can" whenever faced with a question concerning what that god can do - because it can, (by definition), do everything. Yes, an omnipotent god can make a square circle.. the argument ends.

There are many 'standard' arguments that are used on both sides. I have found several that I personally consider worthwhile, but the "rocks too heavy to lift" arguments are futile the way I see it because the answer only ever requires a "yes he can".

---------------

From your edit:

For example, you stated that God can do anything because He is omnipotent, but can't because he is omniscient (He can only do what he knows he will do, nothing else). By doing that you are violating your definition of God's omnipotence. That means He can do the things he knows won't do, even if He never does.

Yeah, I'd go with that.

What I sort of tried to say earlier a couple of posts ago was simply that when combined, the worth of that omnipotence seems to be negated, (certainly from my current non-omnipotent perspective) - or from Clyde Bruckman's perspective: "why bother getting up in the morning?". But you're certainly right.

It's like when you try to explain to a child that santa is just a made-up fantasy... They won't listen to reason because they want to believe for the emotional benefits.

Ggazoo: You and other people that are practically identical to you here, Woody, TheVisitor etc, are exposed with each post that you beleive purely for emotional benefits. Although Woody's song lyrics about the 'Lord' and his happy family singing those lyrics did have me in tears... of laughter :D

You not only believe in Santa... Oops, I mean 'God', but you belong to a particular organised religion because you are that intellectually bankrupt. You are not content with beleiving in the Flying Spag.... I mean 'God', but you associate a million other irrational, wishful guesses to that Tooth fairy... I mean 'God'.

If you have a need to believe in God, then why do you need to attatch that beleif to just one out of an unlimited number of organised faiths?

Many intelligent people with extremely good logical minds (such as C.S. Lewis) have become Christians by logical analysis. Site me an example of a person in their adult life who has rationally and logically become a believer in Santa Clause. I am sorry the analogy fails.

Many intelligent people with extremely good logical minds (such as C.S. Lewis) you seem to have a thing about him, he was never anything else but religious. have become Christians by logical analysis. sorry not possible, religion and logic, are mutually exclusive. Site me an example of a person in their adult life who has rationally and logically become a believer in Santa Clause. I am sorry the analogy fails.
that is a ridiculous thing to say, there ar'nt building on every street corner, for worshipping santa, or people knocking on your door and through your tv set saying santa is love, santa peace be upon him. etc....
the world is indoctrinated with this imaginary god rubbish, we need a mass clean up.

it just goes to show how "logical" you are does'nt it.lol

Many intelligent people with extremely good logical minds (such as C.S. Lewis) have become Christians by logical analysis.

As the preacher stated, it is impossible to belong to an organised religion and actually think an intelligent creator exists via use of logic.

Site me an example of a person in their adult life who has rationally and logically become a believer in Santa Clause. I am sorry the analogy fails.

We actually discover evidence against Santa Clause before we become teenagers. Adults who believe in God share the childish fantasy of those who believe in Santa..

God is no different to that of Astrology, palm reading, Loch Ness monsters, Ghosts, prayer, heaven, hell, the magpies riddle.... It's called superstition. Anything that can't be proven false (unlike Santa) people love to believe in.

My analogy does not fail.

Many intelligent people with extremely good logical minds (such as C.S. Lewis) have become Christians by logical analysis

You do not become a believer, or indeed a christian, by "logical analysis". It was more likely a bump on the head.

Site me an example of a person in their adult life who has rationally and logically become a believer in Santa Clause.

What's real or not real is not decided on popularity.

Further to which, Santa is real..

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965355748/102-1362953-9257712?v=glance&n=283155

But anyway, please answer his question:

"why do you need to attach that belief to just one out of an unlimited number of organised faiths?"

you seem to have a thing about him, he was never anything else but religious. sorry not possible, religion and logic, are mutually exclusive.

I would suggest before commenting you establish your facts correctly. Read something about the man and you will discover that what you have said is completely inaccurate. Reading one of his books would be good for you too, but I suspect you dare not. You might just find that your bigoted view of the incompatability of logic and God is not so. I do respect the man. He was a good researcher, a clever writer, brilliant philosopher and theologian and a logical thinker. in fact all the things you are not!

that is a ridiculous thing to say, there ar'nt building on every street corner, for worshipping santa, or people knocking on your door and through your tv set saying santa is love, santa peace be upon him. etc....
the world is indoctrinated with this imaginary god rubbish, we need a mass clean up.

None of this ranting disproves my statement at all but the style proves both your illiteracy and your lack of any logical coherent answer to the point. In simple words again - whether you choose to like it or not, many people h