If theism stands and falls with theists ...

[Balerion]

Pop quiz: How many omnipotent entities can there be?

As I pointed out before, given that omnipotence is already an illogical concept, you can't argue that only one can logically be omnipotent. Secondly, omnipotence is a decidedly monotheistic trait. You have no reason to assume that a creator or creators must be omnipotent.

No, everybody who has given the terms some thought will not blindly go with the mainstream meanings.

But all you're doing is blindly following mainstream religion. Your concept of god is essentially Jewish. You are so not even close to being the open mind you claim to be. You have a slavish adherence to monotheistic concepts.

[James R]

wynn:

Pop quiz: How many omnipotent entities can there be?

I'm not sure what you're saying here, if this is supposed to be an answer to the question I asked you.

Are you claiming that people who believe in many gods (or more than one god) non-theists? Are you saying that one must believe in a single, omnipotent god in order to be a theist? Are you saying that omnipotence is a necessary feature of a god? Please clarify.

No, everybody who has given the terms some thought will not blindly go with the mainstream meanings.

But you prefer a cheap thrill, eh.

Except in the case of specialised jargon, words are generally given meanings according to mainstream usage. As I said earlier, you can try to rewrite the dictionary to suit yourself if you like, but don't expect to be able to communicate with you if you insist on using your own idiosyncratic meanings for words.

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

I'm not sure what you're saying here, if this is supposed to be an answer to the question I asked you.

So what's your answer.

Are you claiming that people who believe in many gods (or more than one god) non-theists?

Not necessarily, it depends on each individual's case.
Things aren't always how they seem.

Are you saying that one must believe in a single, omnipotent god in order to be a theist?

One MUST believe in God, in order to be ''theist''

Are you saying that omnipotence is a necessary feature of a god? Please clarify.

''Omnipotence'' IS God.


jan.

[Jan Ardena]

JDawg,

As I pointed out before, given that omnipotence is already an illogical concept, you can't argue that only one can logically be omnipotent.

Don't tell me! The.... can God make a rock so big the He cannot lift it?
If that's the case LG already schooled you.

Secondly, omnipotence is a decidedly monotheistic trait. You have no reason to assume that a creator or creators must be omnipotent.

You're right, creators do not have to be omnipotent, but the ONE from whom everything emantes, and who maintains, and destroys the material world in a continuos cycle according to His Will, is by default omnipotent.

But all you're doing is blindly following mainstream religion. Your concept of god is essentially Jewish. You are so not even close to being the open mind you claim to be. You have a slavish adherence to monotheistic concepts.

God was known long before known history.
The vedas for example?

jan.

[wynn]

Except in the case of specialised jargon, words are generally given meanings according to mainstream usage. As I said earlier, you can try to rewrite the dictionary to suit yourself if you like, but don't expect to be able to communicate with you if you insist on using your own idiosyncratic meanings for words.

Religion requires "specialized jargon."

[wynn]

As I pointed out before, given that omnipotence is already an illogical concept, you can't argue that only one can logically be omnipotent.

I am already familiar with your insistence in the freedom to depart from logic.

Secondly, omnipotence is a decidedly monotheistic trait. You have no reason to assume that a creator or creators must be omnipotent.

No, because any puny creator will do to create and maintain the Universe and all there is!

But all you're doing is blindly following mainstream religion. Your concept of god is essentially Jewish. You are so not even close to being the open mind you claim to be. You have a slavish adherence to monotheistic concepts.

Talking about yourself again? Right.

[Balerion]

Don't tell me! The.... can God make a rock so big the He cannot lift it?
If that's the case LG already schooled you.

LG offered barely-legible utterances that did nothing to defeat my assertion. Do you have something new to offer?

You're right, creators do not have to be omnipotent, but the ONE from whom everything emantes, and who maintains, and destroys the material world in a continuos cycle according to His Will, is by default omnipotent.

Well, you're leaving out a few other required traits, but okay, supposing that is true, you've still only described a particular version of god (the Judeo-Christian sort, to be exact), as opposed to a logically necessary god. For example, there is no omnipotence implied in Greek mythology; at the very least, Chronos required Chaos as material from which to create the next generation of gods. Norse mythology says multiple gods created the earth from the body of a slain monster. I was just reading about the Mbombo creation myth, in which Mbombo is walking around on earth (which already exists, and for which no explanation is given) when he gets a tummy ache and literally pukes up the rest of the universe, so intent isn't even always a characteristic of creation myths.

God was known long before known history.
The vedas for example?

jan.[/QUOTE]

Vedism was not "before history." It was practiced for roughly a thousand years, from 1500 BCE to 500 BCE. It has historical precedents, and is itself simply a forerunner of Hinduism. There's nothing "special" about it, as you so often claim (though always fail to demonstrate), so unless you have something new to say on the subject, I suggest you choose another tack.

[lightgigantic]

LG offered barely-legible utterances that did nothing to defeat my assertion. Do you have something new to offer?

.... ....

[Balerion]

I am already familiar with your insistence in the freedom to depart from logic.

And this means what?

No, because any puny creator will do to create and maintain the Universe and all there is!

I'm noting sarcasm here, and also noting that it comes in lieu of a reasoned argument.

You must demonstrate how it is necessary for a deity to be omnipotent. So far all you've managed are fallacious appeals to the immensity of the job--see your bitchy little snipe above--but the grand nature of creation by itself does not necessitate omnipotence. Why does the ability to create a universe necessitate the ability to then not only define the laws of physics within, but tweak them or put them on hold as one wishes? Why is that a necessity of creation? You must make that argument in order for your case to stand.

(Awaiting the equally bitchy "Right, because you say so?" troll nonsense response)

Talking about yourself again? Right.

Again, what sort of babyish, trolling BS is this? Answer the charge or get lost.

[wynn]

Answer the charge or get lost.

Jawohl, Herr Oberst! Sieg heil!

[lightgigantic]

Jawohl, Herr Oberst! Sieg heil!

Its probably more like this

[Balerion]

Jawohl, Herr Oberst! Sieg heil!

How did I know that you would completely ignore the salient arguments of the post and cling to just one aspect that you could treat with your trademark immaturity? Am I psychic, or are you really that predictable?

I was under the impression that anything below a certain level of discourse was not allowed. In recent days I have spent a great deal of time pouring over the site rules, and I can't quite see how your relentless evasively and dishonesty are allowed. Must be another instance of "moderator discretion."

[lightgigantic]

How did I know that you would completely ignore the salient arguments of the post and cling to just one aspect that you could treat with your trademark immaturity? Am I psychic, or are you really that predictable?

I was under the impression that anything below a certain level of discourse was not allowed. In recent days I have spent a great deal of time pouring over the site rules, and I can't quite see how your relentless evasively and dishonesty are allowed. Must be another instance of "moderator discretion."

will the irony never end?

[wynn]

How did I know that you would completely ignore the salient arguments of the post and cling to just one aspect that you could treat with your trademark immaturity? Am I psychic, or are you really that predictable?

So tell me: What is the right way to approach a paper tiger?

I was under the impression that anything below a certain level of discourse was not allowed.

Yup, and you should take that to heart yourself, first and foremost!

But I know: You love me so much that you don't care whether I feel loved by you or not.

[Balerion]

So tell me: What is the right way to approach a paper tiger?

The first thing you could do is explain how my argument is a paper tiger. This is not the first time you've made such a statement about someone's argument without bothering to point out its flaws.

Yup, and you should take that to heart yourself, first and foremost!

Oh please, Wynn. You have driven even the most patient on this forum to the brink with your inane, ignorant, and infantile arguments, and in every case you close the subject with crap like this, the petulant tantrums, the sarcastic quips, the pictures, the babyish attempts to chase off your betters once they've bested you. When your point has been defeated, you simply can't bring yourself to admit that you're wrong, or at the very least to agree to disagree. No, you're not honest enough for all that. Instead, you'll resort to "I know you are but what am I" and other childish tactics that lost their effectiveness once you graduated to grades that began with numbers rather than letters.

But I know: You love me so much that you don't care whether I feel loved by you or not.

Yet another attempt at wit that falls embarrassingly short of its mark.

[wynn]

The thing is, JDawg, that I think you sometimes bring up good points for discussion (such as whether omnipotence is necessary for creation).
But your posts are often overwrought with so much hostility and condescension that I eventually just can't bring myself to seriously engage in discussion with you for longer periods of time.

[river]

the problem with theists and the "ism" of , is that they have no depth other than the bible to fall back on.

the bible is the condensed version of Ancient History , go at least back to Sumer then move forward

and by the way it would do us ALL good to do so , not only is this part of our history important , it is fascinating

[Balerion]

The thing is, JDawg, that I think you sometimes bring up good points for discussion (such as whether omnipotence is necessary for creation).
But your posts are often overwrought with so much hostility and condescension that I eventually just can't bring myself to seriously engage in discussion with you for longer periods of time.

You are the source of the hostility, Wynn. Don't get it the other way around. You do the same thing in every single conversation you engage in, regardless of who you're talking to. Rav, for example, has treated you with nothing but respect, and you've given him the same arrogant and dismissive one-liners that you give to me, or to Spidergoat, or to JamesR. So don't pretend I'm the problem, Wynn. It's you. It's always been you.

[Balerion]

the problem with theists and the "ism" of , is that they have no depth other than the bible to fall back on.

the bible is the condensed version of Ancient History , go at least back to Sumer then move forward

and by the way it would do us ALL good to do so , not only is this part of our history important , it is fascinating

The Bible is not ancient history. It's a record of myth, just like the myths of Sumer on which they were based. It is not an historical account, river. By that logic, then every religious myth with predecessors (such as the vedas that Jan Ardena seems to know little about but insists on bringing up all the time) would be "ancient history". But that can't be, because each of these faiths give conflicting accounts. How do you reconcile that, river?

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
the problem with theists and the "ism" of , is that they have no depth other than the bible to fall back on.

the bible is the condensed version of Ancient History , go at least back to Sumer then move forward

and by the way it would do us ALL good to do so , not only is this part of our history important , it is fascinating

The Bible is not ancient history. It's a record of myth, just like the myths of Sumer on which they were based. It is not an historical account, river. By that logic, then every religious myth with predecessors (such as the vedas that Jan Ardena seems to know little about but insists on bringing up all the time) would be "ancient history". But that can't be, because each of these faiths give conflicting accounts. How do you reconcile that, river?

each takes there account and experiences differently

the thing is though , all has been written down on cuniforms , by many peoples