A world with a loving God.

Vociferous said:
No, I already told you that omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible. If you want to lie about it, that's on you.
Click to expand...
god makes a large mountain size weight

Then pronounced - for the moments I am touching the weight I have no strength. As soon as I release my touch from the weight I have my strength back

Presto - god made a weight he cannot lift

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
god makes a large mountain size weight

Then pronounced - for the moments I am touching the weight I have no strength. As soon as I release my touch from the weight I have my strength back

Presto - god made a weight he cannot lift
Click to expand...
No, a feature that defines what a God is, like omnipotence, cannot be voluntarily abdicated without contradicting its existence as a God. Pronouncing temporary impotence does not mean the God cannot lift it, only that it will not. It's choice does not inherently limit its ability, and genuinely giving up that ability would make it impossible to regain, as the non-omnipotent cannot grant omnipotence.
 
Vociferous said:
No, a feature that defines what a God is, like omnipotence, cannot be voluntarily abdicated without contradicting its existence as a God. Pronouncing temporary impotence does not mean the God cannot lift it, only that it will not. It's choice does not inherently limit its ability, and genuinely giving up that ability would make it impossible to regain, as the non-omnipotent cannot grant omnipotence.
Click to expand...
So a god who can do anything - cannot step down for two minutes?

Oops there goes can do anything

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
So a god who can do anything - cannot step down for two minutes?

Oops there goes can do anything
Click to expand...
No, that's just your naive idea of "anything" including the logically contradictory. If you think the logically contradictory can occur, you've already lost the argument.
 
Vociferous said:
No, a feature that defines what a God is, like omnipotence, cannot be voluntarily abdicated without contradicting its existence as a God. Pronouncing temporary impotence does not mean the God cannot lift it, only that it will not. It's choice does not inherently limit its ability, and genuinely giving up that ability would make it impossible to regain, as the non-omnipotent cannot grant omnipotence.
Click to expand...
Do you think God is an ape?

EDIT: A Great Ape.
 
Vociferous said:
No, a feature that defines what a God is, like omnipotence, cannot be voluntarily abdicated without contradicting its existence as a God. Pronouncing temporary impotence does not mean the God cannot lift it, only that it will not. It's choice does not inherently limit its ability, and genuinely giving up that ability would make it impossible to regain, as the non-omnipotent cannot grant omnipotence.
Click to expand...
Why can't creating a weight you can't lift be a bad thing? It's a good thing. He created you but he can't beat you at video games.

EDIT: Pretend you're awesome at Modern Warfare for the Playstation.
 
davewhite04 said:
No there isn't. What "God" are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Are you really that obtuse? There obviously is a difference between you choosing to lift a watermelon and being unable to lift a house. Unless a God (any God defined as inherently omnipotent) irrevocably gives up its omnipotence, any inability to do the logically possible is simply a choice. If you're this clueless about the long history of debate about omnipotence, maybe you should bone up on it before wading into such discussions.
 
Vociferous said:
No, that's just your naive idea of "anything" including the logically contradictory. If you think the logically contradictory can occur, you've already lost the argument.
Click to expand...
OK

So omnipotent does not include doing stuff which is is logically contradictory (ie logically contradictory is excluded from anything)

Lets consider the Big Bang from two points of view

Science - Big Bang occurred and the Universe was created

Religion - god made the Universe in 6 days (reasonable for a omnipotent being? Could it be done in 1 second? Just asking)

Science - A state of NOTHING is not possible. To me this seems strange as I would have thought NOTHING would have been the default. Hence stuff exist and has always been the case

Religion - god has always existed

The difference between the two, in my view, while Science states stuff has always existed, Religion ups the ante and imbues the stuff with anthropomorphic properties

Science - Universe runs following unbreakable laws of physics which (disputed) follows cause and effect

Religion - frequently uses cause and effect (Universe must have had a cause, and the cause was god). And then we are back to - who caused god? oh he always existed

Logically contradictory or not?

If yes - bye bye god

If no back to - where did stuff come from?

Science - back to stuff is continuously being produced from nothing. Or at least from energy fields

Religion - back to made in 6 days (did I mention anthropomorphism?) Not saying ONLY god was in existence, there could have been stuff laying around, just not mentioned in the good book

But if no stuff laying around, god produced stuff from nothing???

Do I hear logically contradiction?

Enough, coffee time

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
OK

So omnipotent does not include doing stuff which is is logically contradictory (ie logically contradictory is excluded from anything)

Lets consider the Big Bang from two points of view

Science - Big Bang occurred and the Universe was created

Religion - god made the Universe in 6 days (reasonable for a omnipotent being? Could it be done in 1 second? Just asking)

Science - A state of NOTHING is not possible. To me this seems strange as I would have thought NOTHING would have been the default. Hence stuff exist and has always been the case

Religion - god has always existed

The difference between the two, in my view, while Science states stuff has always existed, Religion ups the ante and imbues the stuff with anthropomorphic properties
Click to expand...
According to Alan Guth's cosmological inflation, the universe did come from nothing, or very very little (due to the uncertainty principle), which he called "the ultimate free lunch". So no, science does not unequivocally say nothing is not possible. Albeit many scientists find the idea distasteful enough to invent infinite but unevidenced universes trying to explain it away.

Nothing being the default is more probably, which is why a crucial question in philosophy and cosmology/cosmogony is why is there something rather than nothing. If true, it's trivial that nothing has always "existed", as it still exists as a concept of absence/potential. A God being the ultimate source for all potential would seem to align with that nothing.

How people personify a God to relate to it is immaterial. That's moving from debating theism to debating a particular religion.

Science - Universe runs following unbreakable laws of physics which (disputed) follows cause and effect

Religion - frequently uses cause and effect (Universe must have had a cause, and the cause was god). And then we are back to - who caused god? oh he always existed

Logically contradictory or not?

If yes - bye bye god

If no back to - where did stuff come from?
Click to expand...
Explained above. No contradiction.

Science - back to stuff is continuously being produced from nothing. Or at least from energy fields

Religion - back to made in 6 days (did I mention anthropomorphism?) Not saying ONLY god was in existence, there could have been stuff laying around, just not mentioned in the good book

But if no stuff laying around, god produced stuff from nothing???

Do I hear logically contradiction?
Click to expand...
I hear the contradiction in how you describe the science. You went from "A state of NOTHING is not possible" to "stuff is continuously being produced from nothing". The latter is true, as virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time, due to the same uncertainty principle thought to cause the Big Bang.

Yes, both religion and science (some scientists anyway) claim the universe came from nothing.

Still don't hear any logical contradictions. Are you sure you understand what a logical contradiction is? It's not just whatever sounds odd to you.
 
Vociferous said:
According to Alan Guth's cosmological inflation, the universe did come from nothing, or very very little (due to the uncertainty principle), which he called "the ultimate free lunch". So no, science does not unequivocally say nothing is not possible. Albeit many scientists find the idea distasteful enough to invent infinite but unevidenced universes trying to explain it away.

Nothing being the default is more probably, which is why a crucial question in philosophy and cosmology/cosmogony is why is there something rather than nothing. If true, it's trivial that nothing has always "existed", as it still exists as a concept of absence/potential. A God being the ultimate source for all potential would seem to align with that nothing.

How people personify a God to relate to it is immaterial. That's moving from debating theism to debating a particular religion.


Explained above. No contradiction.


I hear the contradiction in how you describe the science. You went from "A state of NOTHING is not possible" to "stuff is continuously being produced from nothing". The latter is true, as virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time, due to the same uncertainty principle thought to cause the Big Bang.

Yes, both religion and science (some scientists anyway) claim the universe came from nothing.

Still don't hear any logical contradictions. Are you sure you understand what a logical contradiction is? It's not just whatever sounds odd to you.
Click to expand...
Correct the mis mis-quotes please if you expect a response

:)
 
Vociferous said:
Are you really that obtuse? There obviously is a difference between you choosing to lift a watermelon and being unable to lift a house. Unless a God (any God defined as inherently omnipotent) irrevocably gives up its omnipotence, any inability to do the logically possible is simply a choice. If you're this clueless about the long history of debate about omnipotence, maybe you should bone up on it before wading into such discussions.
Click to expand...
You think Zeus couldn't create a rock he couldn't lift?

EDIT: Do you think "God" is the universe or something? The universe hates you. Float in it a while and you'll turn into a mummy.

EDIT: If you are talking about Jesus' God, then you are right.
 
Last edited:
Vociferous said:
No, I already told you that omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible. If you want to lie about it, that's on you.
Click to expand...

omnipotent can mean having either:

a: unlimited

or

b: very great

power.

having very great power does not require that one is able to do the impossible, but having unlimited power does.
because if ones power is limited by the impossible, it is not unlimited.

so, I suppose it depends on what version of omnipotence you were talking about.

god could be pretty damn powerful, just not all powerful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top