Monkey Men vs. Bible Thumpers (Evolution vs. Creationism)

[kalma]

[Me$$iah wrote:
and more to the point how can a God be both omnipotent and omniscient.
]


Havent I heard tha argument b4 sumwhere ????

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

[Me$$iah wrote:
and more to the point how can a God be both omnipotent and omniscient.
]


Havent I heard tha argument b4 sumwhere ????

Can someone explain this to me? As I understand it, omnipotent is 'all powerful,' and omniscient is 'all knowing.' where do these collide?

[Kapitano]

[Me$$iah wrote:
and more to the point how can a God be both omnipotent and omniscient.]

Can someone explain this to me? As I understand it, omnipotent is 'all powerful,' and omniscient is 'all knowing.' where do these collide?

I'm just guessing, but maybe the reasoning looks like this:

Could god create a question that he couldn't answer? Or a puzzle he couldn't solve? If he's omnipotent then he can. If he's omnicient then he can't.

Omnipotence and omnicience can collide the other way too. Can god make himself forget something? If he's omnipotent then he can do it, but if he's omnicient, then he'll know what knowledge has been erased.

Omnipotence can collide with itself: If god can make anything happen, the he can (for instance) make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it.
Omnicience too: If god is omnicient then he knows how to outsmart himself.

This is what happens when you talk about infinity.

[Me$$iah]

it is exactly that

If god knows everything then he knows how it all turns out in the end
If god is all powerful he can change anything thus the end he knew isnt correct, (but then he would have known he would change things, so he didnt choose to do anything not already predestined) so either he is all knowing and thus a slave to his omnicience or he is all powerful thus not all knowing

this is a very old argument best summed up in the rock analogy
rock too big lift blah blah

never mind the more deep or philisophical ideas ie.
God want believers
if God is real then he knows what proof I need to believe in him
God can provide such proof
Why do I not believe

Unless its Gods plan for me to deny him


Then there the old favorite of Pascals Wager
1 God is real
2 God isnt real
A I believe
B I dont believe

If 1+A then i goto heaven forever
If 1+B then i burn in hell forever
I 2+A or B it doesnt matter

It is said that the wise man should choose the first option cos if God is real then theres everything to gain and everything to lose but if 2 is true then by believing you aint lost nothing so belief is the obvious choice

However how dare anyone try to figure the mind of God
Maybe its 'His' intention that we reject the spiritual in favour of the scientific, or maybe its the grown up test (have we become self suficient) with no more need for God

the wager doesnt now look so simple maybe rejecting God is the only way to win .... maybe not ...... but it aint no more an obvious choice

And if you want to get into the source material for God (most of our version of God comes from the Torah) which forms the basis for the 3 major world religions then immediatley we run into problems,
as stated in this thread previously
Genesis contains 2 seperate creation strories
There are two versions of the Flood myth told along side each other, at the same time
And then theres Gilgamesh (not in the bible) A flood story that mirrors the Noah story but certainly aint the same

Jesus Ive written heaps all in one go
so Im just gonna stop here for a bit and clik send
im not even gonna check for spelling or GRAMMAR errors
cos i just dont care me

enjoy

[Adam!]

Omnipotence can collide with itself: If god can make anything happen, the he can (for instance) make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it.

A lot of atheists like to make this argument: "If God can do anything then can God lift a stone He can't lift?". This is an odd argument to make, because there are two obvious counterarguments and anyone who uses either likely thinks they are logically sound. The debate invariably ends in stalemate.

Argument 1: God can do freaking anything. If you ask "Can God [fill-in-the-blank]?" The answer is therefore yes. So the debate turns into
Atheist: "God can do anything, right?"
God Boy: "Yep"
Atheist: "Well, can God create a stone He can't lift".
God Boy: "Yep"
Atheist: "Well, can He lift it, then?"
God Boy: "Yep"
Atheist: "Well, that's a contradiction, and God can't do something that's a contradiction. Therefore, an all-powerful God can't exist."
God Boy: "Wrong"
Atheist: "Whaaa...?"
God Boy: "You said yourself that God can do anything. Something that's a contradiction is still someTHING, so by your own definition God can do it."
Atheist: "Blargh!"

Argument 2:
Atheist: "Can God create a stone He can't lift".
God Boy: "Yep"
Atheist: "Well, can He lift it, then?"
God Boy: "Sorry, did I hear you right? You asked 'Can God lift a stone He can't lift'?"
Atheist: "Yeah"
God Boy: "No. Obviously."
Atheist: "But you think God can do anything, right?"
God Boy: "Yeah, but not stupid things."
Atheist: "Oh."

That second argument seems to be the view adopted by most theologists.

And yet we must not fail to qualify this predicate
of power under real and vital limitations. The para-
dox of this limiting of omnipotence disappears when
we understand that the limitation does not mean a de-
ficiency of energy or might, but expresses only a relation
which God's working power bears to the objects of the
divine choice, in the light of which the so-called limita-
tions are seen in basal truth to be forms or features of
the divine perfection. It is not derogatory to
God to say, as an apostle does, that He "cannot lie"
(Tit. i. 2), or do anything contrary to His moral excel-
lence. He cannot make right wrong or wrong right,
or obliterate their eternal distinctions. He cannot
act irrationally or effect things that in themselves
are self-contradictory, as that a thing should be and
not be at the same time, or make an event already past
not to have occurred, or so overthrow the mathematical
relations as to have a shorter than straight line between
two points, or cause two and two to make five. But the
whole limitation thus asserted manifestly means simply
that God's power cannot be exercised except in harmony
with His perfect nature and self-consistent will.

[Me$$iah]

300+ arguments that proove god
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm


Puce:

Dude youe missing the point
If he can do anything - then he can do anything
can he concieve of a pattern so cmplex he cant understand it
If yes then hes CANT understand it
if no then he CANT do that
seems fundamental to me not that stupid

[erik]

300+ arguments that proove god
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm


Puce:

Dude youe missing the point
If he can do anything - then he can do anything
can he concieve of a pattern so cmplex he cant understand it
If yes then hes CANT understand it
if no then he CANT do that
seems fundamental to me not that stupid

You are missing the point that Puce actually cited a book. That book puts forth the supposition that omnipotence and omniscience do not extend into areas which lead to paradoxes.

[Kapitano]

You're assuming god is bound by the laws of logic. If he created them, and can change them, then he isn't.

There are no paradoxes in theology, because god just changes the rules.

You remember that I trained for the priesthood many years ago? I trained with people who thought like that.

[Adam!]

Something.

Sorry Sanchez, but I think you missed my point. Look, I'll play God's Advocate for a second. Either you define God as being able to do "evvvverrrrything, even things leading to a paradox" (which is as stupid as the Ontological argument {the real one, not the one from your cute-in-a-tedious-way link} but I'm just covering all the options here} or you define Him as being able to do "everything, except for things leading to a paradox". Between these two working definitions we cover all the options. By using either of those two definitions GodBoy cannot be drawn into a contradiction.

To illustrate, let's look at your own argument.

If he can do anything - then he can do anything
can he concieve of a pattern so cmplex he cant understand it
If yes then hes CANT understand it

If I believe God can do paradoxical things, this is not a problem. However, if I have my head out of the sand and I don't think God can do paradoxical things, then the fact that God can't do this particular party trick won’t phase me.

Any theology I've heard of has been pretty solidly internally consistent.

[kalma]

Since 'God' doesn't exist most of this arguement is irrelevant.
And if he did do you all really think he is worried about anything you all have to say.


xx

[Kapitano]

Since 'God' doesn't exist most of this arguement is irrelevant.
And if he did do you all really think he is worried about anything you all have to say.

There's only one thing god cares about more than whether you believe in him. And that's what you do with your genitals.

God is watching us. But he's watching our underwear very closely.

[Caravan Ray]

Since 'God' doesn't exist most of this arguement is irrelevant.
And if he did do you all really think he is worried about anything you all have to say.

There's only one thing god cares about more than whether you believe in him. And that's what you do with your genitals.

God is watching us. But he's watching our underwear very closely.

Ha!

Did you fair dinkum train for the priesthood Kapitano?

[sparks]

Surely there's a reason they call it "seminary" school.

[sparks]

# ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE RIGHT
(1) God saves the queen.
(2) The queen hasn't died.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Didn't work for old JP, did it?

Heh, heh. Eh. Too soon?

Can I still call it a penis-hat?

[sparks]

tonetripper said:

The Greeks certainly did and they ruled society for tons of years. And if there had to be a belief that God was a man or a Woman then my money's on the chick. There the ones that put us out into this crazy world.

Let's split that one up.

A) The longevity of a society is directly proportional to how close its religion is to the "truth".

B) God needs genitals.


Oh, and eh, sorry for the triple post. I just discovered this goldmine of a thread.

[sparks]

300+ arguments that proove god
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm


Puce:

Dude youe missing the point
If he can do anything - then he can do anything
can he concieve of a pattern so cmplex he cant understand it
If yes then hes CANT understand it
if no then he CANT do that
seems fundamental to me not that stupid

You are missing the point that Puce actually cited a book. That book puts forth the supposition that omnipotence and omniscience do not extend into areas which lead to paradoxes.

Would that really be a supposition? I think it's inarguable. Paradoxes exist only in principle, by definition. I think morons are only so hopelessly obsessed with them because they're items of interest, being logical fingercuffs. They're a construct based on words and symbols, not representations of actual contradictions in reality. The "stone so heavy he can't lift it" argument is the kind I lean back and groan at when I have to argue religion with an idiot as "team-mate". It's one of those "Yes, thanks... we all heard that when we were nine... let's move on, shall we?" sort of moments.

[kalma]

Since 'God' doesn't exist most of this arguement is irrelevant.
And if he did do you all really think he is worried about anything you all have to say.

There's only one thing god cares about more than whether you believe in him. And that's what you do with your genitals.

God is watching us. But he's watching our underwear very closely.

OMG I'm gonna die AND I'm wearing my mothers underwear!

[deshead]

I think it's inarguable. Paradoxes exist only in principle, by definition.

No, they exist in practice too:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/paradox1.html
http://seneca.fis.ucm.es/parr/GAMES/Par ... 20Wins.htm

A good paradox is the great love of science.

I think morons are only so hopelessly obsessed with them because they're items of interest, being logical fingercuffs.

I disagree. Consider this paradox:
Can God violate the physical laws of the Universe? More specifically, does God have true "universal" omniscience, which requires the ability to gather information from all points in the Universe simultaneously, an act that violates the fundamental laws of physics?

The examination of this paradox is not the realm of hopelessly obsessed morons. Rather, those questions go to the very heart of theology, the nature of God. And something more relevant to the debate at hand: to resolve the paradox, we must agree that God operates beyond the realm of physics. This gives us a framework for our discussion, without which further discourse regarding God's powers is futile.

[Kapitano]

Did you fair dinkum train for the priesthood Kapitano?

I did indeed. It's an interesting experience, sitting in lessons with fourty fervent believes who want to be priests, watching them have their faith shaken up.

Learning that the pit of hell and the virgin birth are the result of mistranslations, or that the trinity was a notion formed over 200 years as the result as a series of theological crises.

About half the students dropped out after the first year (I didn't complete the course either). The rest developed their own complex and vague faiths - worshipping the universe and calling it god, or treating the bible as a collection of ethical parables as opposed to history.

[UnDesirable]

Isaac Asimov wrote an interesting non-fiction book called, "Asimov's Guide To the Bible". He ties the the Bible into what was going on geographically, in the various tribes and societies and historicly at the time. I've only had time to jump around to different passages, but it is an interesting read.

[jb]

Since 'God' doesn't exist most of this arguement is irrelevant.
And if he did do you all really think he is worried about anything you all have to say.xx

People's relationship with god matters less with regard to their interaction with "Him" than with their interaction WITH EACH OTHER.

This means that discussing the issue is really pretty damned important, actually. Not necessarily discussing it HERE, mind you, but somewhere... might be nice to have an international religious convention where the various parties could chat and compare notes on how to control their various factions of murderous lunatics.

Your comment seems to imply that the posters on this thread are self-important. I haven't really gotten that impression. If you have nothing to contribute, please be silent.

[sparks]

Isaac Asimov wrote an interesting non-fiction book called, "Asimov's Guide To the Bible". He ties the the Bible into what was going on geographically, in the various tribes and societies and historicly at the time. I've only had time to jump around to different passages, but it is an interesting read.

I can scarcely imagine he would've had much accuracy to that effect, considering it would've been written in the 1960s, yes? It would be an interesting perspective, nonetheless.