|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Jun 24, 2013 2:27:33 GMT 5
if your power is limited,you are not all powerful. This is unimportant. Then define a new word, like demiomnipotent that means that god can do everything that is either logically or metaphysically possible. I think most intelligent christians would have no problem admitting that their god, by these definitions, is not supposed to be allpowerful but demiomnipotent. While I understand what your getting at, I find the find the name you gave it a bit of an oxymoron Half all powerful? thats just not all powerful, why bother with a new word? |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 24, 2013 3:14:00 GMT 5
This is unimportant. Then define a new word, like demiomnipotent that means that god can do everything that is either logically or metaphysically possible. I think most intelligent christians would have no problem admitting that their god, by these definitions, is not supposed to be allpowerful but demiomnipotent. While I understand what your getting at, I find the find the name you gave it a bit of an oxymoron Half all powerful? thats just not all powerful, why bother with a new word? To make my point . |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Jun 24, 2013 6:59:47 GMT 5
While I understand what your getting at, I find the find the name you gave it a bit of an oxymoron Half all powerful? thats just not all powerful, why bother with a new word? To make my point . but your point infact proves mine, god is not a) all powerful b) all knowing c) caring or d) in existance |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 24, 2013 7:27:06 GMT 5
but your point infact proves mine, god is not a) all powerful b) all knowing c) caring or d) in existance my point was that the definition of all powerful you use is irrelevant as nobody is claiming that an entity with this property exists |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Jun 24, 2013 8:08:21 GMT 5
but your point infact proves mine, god is not a) all powerful b) all knowing c) caring or d) in existance my point was that the definition of all powerful you use is irrelevant as nobody is claiming that an entity with this property exists Nobody? Incorrect there are plently of people who think god can do anything, I have met several of them. |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 24, 2013 8:34:29 GMT 5
my point was that the definition of all powerful you use is irrelevant as nobody is claiming that an entity with this property exists Nobody? Incorrect there are plently of people who think god can do anything, I have met several of them. sure nobody in my sentence was hyperbole. Almost Nobody on the oposition capable of stringimg a coherent hought together believes that. I am quite comfident that most of the time you initial definition will constitute a.straw man |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Jun 26, 2013 4:00:01 GMT 5
Fellow members, please keep following in mind:
1. Events have taken place in history which drove many people to believe in existence of God. Such events may or may not happen during our lives.
2. Humans have very limited reach in the Universe; the whole system is so big. This leaves room for lot of "unknowns" for even scientific endeavors.
3. It is in human nature to believe in observable phenomenon but common sense dictates that "observable" doesn't represents "whole."
In the nutshell, critics should also keep an open mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jul 14, 2013 0:56:11 GMT 5
Fellow members, please keep following in mind: 1. Events have taken place in history which drove many people to believe in existence of God. Such events may or may not happen during our lives. None of the events have been anywhere near convincing enough that "God must've done it". There's something called a "God of gaps". An argument many religious defenders use to defend God. Examples:"If God doesn't exist, then where does the universe come from?
If God doesn't exist, then how did life came to exist?"However, one should understand that simply because science cannot answer those two questions in full confidence yet, is by no stretch of the imagination somehow "evidence" that God exists. The more we learn about science, the more we disprove the existence of God. Hey, 2000 years ago I'm sure that people didn't understand sunlight either, so they simply assumed that it was God, because they had no better explanation. God was merely there to fill in the empty space of human understanding. Now, 2000 years later, we have a much deeper scientific understanding about Earth. Remember, things such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, sandstorms, and hurricanes were all once thought to be the work of God. Now we know exactly how they come to be, and that they do not need an invisible creator to do what they do. Despite that, science already has solidified theories for both of those questions, that are both supported by far superior evidence than the idea of God. The universe was likely created by a Big Bang, an energy explosion so powerful beyond belief that it created both space and time. Life came to Earth through amino acids, that likely bonded via chemical reactions into proteins and eventually DNA. The mystery of the universe and the creation of the cell are the only two places left for theists to hide. "We don't know where it came from, so God must've done it". It's only a matter of time before the unanswered questions are answered, the universe is probably one of the last things science will need to answer; but when that day comes, any more belief in God will be considered nothing more but wishful thinking, truthfully. I'm not insulting any religious person for their faith, you should be allowed to believe in what you want, but the truth can be harsh at times. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Sept 10, 2013 5:44:47 GMT 5
Note that theistic philosophers are likely to point out that god might have had a sufficient moral reason for not acting (this is called skeptical theism). if he was really all powerful then he could have altered reality without conflict with his morals. All powerful means nothing is outside your capabilites, there is nothing you cannot do and no limits on how you can do it. So I would call that a shitty excuse. Hmm. just a thought, but what's the point of being pure, good, and righteous if a floating space god made you do it. I believe the whole point is to let people have the freewill to be good or not... If there is a god of course...  |
|
wiffle
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 41
|
Post by wiffle on Sept 19, 2013 7:31:09 GMT 5
Super old, but...
You cannot have half-omnipotence, because omnipotent suggests infinite power. You cannot have half of an infinite, because "half" implies a finite value, and the infinite is always infinitely greater than a finite.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 19, 2013 19:39:12 GMT 5
Super old, but... You cannot have half-omnipotence, because omnipotent suggests infinite power. You cannot have half of an infinite, because "half" implies a finite value, and the infinite is always infinitely greater than a finite. I am not sure what you are trying to address. The god f classical christian theology is omnipotent in the sense that it can do whatever is metaphysically possible. If you now say: "that is not omnipotent means" then you are a, wrong since it has meant as much, regardless what the word root may imply, and b, making an irrelevant argument about definitions. Christian theologians simply do not believe that god can do literally "everything, even impossible things" and if you use this notion of omnipotence you are arguing against a straw man. As for you sophistry regarding infinity: This is irrelevant to everything. You need to get a grip on the difference between definitions and word rots. |
|
wiffle
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 41
|
Post by wiffle on Sept 20, 2013 7:47:32 GMT 5
The Christian God is supposed to have unlimited power within its nature. This still allows for infinites, and thus, you cannot have half of that.
For example, the Christian God would be able to produce an infinite list of materials. How many could a half-omnipotent deity generate?
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 20, 2013 14:19:32 GMT 5
The Christian God is supposed to have unlimited power within its nature. This still allows for infinites, and thus, you cannot have half of that. For example, the Christian God would be able to produce an infinite list of materials. How many could a half-omnipotent deity generate? infitely many? No one is arguing that half infinity is anything more than a label. It does not correspond to reality insofar as the semantic content of the word root is respected, but was used as name for a particular state of affairs, namely if there is a god that can do everything that is metaphysically possible, such as producing an infinity of objects. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 20, 2013 17:27:00 GMT 5
Half as many meaterials as an infinte number would still be infinite, just like there's an infinite number of even numbers, or prime numbers etc. So this label wouldn't limit it's abilities in this regard.
|
|
wiffle
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 41
|
Post by wiffle on Sept 21, 2013 2:53:40 GMT 5
Can you produce half of the existing numbers? No. A half for an infinite is simply impossible to attain.
|
|
