Can god create a rock so big...

In this short topic,I will state my answer to the question:Can God create a rock so big he couldn't lift it?

I would also like any creationists to offer their own explanations.

Atheists, feel free to debate any answers, but please don't make this another Creationism vs. Evolution thread. Let's stay on topic.

This question has stumped people for a long time, but it's really quite silly in my book. Firt of all, God is not a physical being. This question is extremely limited in it's understanding. God made the physical realm, and all the laws in it. He himself is a spiritual being, and does not use a physical body. In my beliefs however, he could create a large rock, and a human body too weak to lift the rock. He could then enter the body, and attempt to lift the rock using physical strength, and be physically unable to do so. However, at the same time, I beleive he could leave the body, and create a stronger one, enter it, and lift the rock.

The question assumes that God is boud by physical rules. He isn't; except when he is a physical being. However, even then he could change the laws. But assuming that God would play by his own rules, yes. I beleieve God could create a rock to big for a physical manefistation of himself to lift. But that dies not make him a limited entity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

I beleieve God could create a rock to big for a physical manefistation of himself to lift. But that dies not make him a limited entity.

---

It makes God a limited entity if there is such thing as a rock he cannot lift.

My answer to the question (in the hypothetical scenario that God exists and is omnipotent): Yes. God could create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, and he would be able to lift it. That statement contradicts itself, right? Exactly. The concept of omnipotence contradicts itself.

I love how you say "creationists" and "atheists" without considering the fact that there are christians that don't believe in that literal interpretation of the bible, creationist drivel. As I said elsewhere, there is no creationist vs. evolution debate. It's settled science. It's just that some people that understand evolution can be bothered to tell creationists what ignorant morons they are. Think of it as a favor.

Don't bring it up and you wont hear about it.

Forgive the misspellings. I'm on my iPod touch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I love how you say "creationists" and "atheists" without considering the fact that there are christians that don't believe in that literal interpretation of the bible, creationist drivel. As I said elsewhere, there is no creationist vs. evolution debate. It's settled science. It's just that some people that understand evolution can be bothered to tell creationists what ignorant morons they are. Think of it as a favor.

Don't bring it up and you wont hear about it.

---

It's more like you guys get so inconfident, you throw unnecessary insults to perfectly good meaning people. There is a debate, wether you like it or not, and I've heard both sides say some good points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It makes God a limited entity if there is such thing as a rock he cannot lift.

My answer to the question (in the hypothetical scenario that God exists and is omnipotent): Yes. God could create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, and he would be able to lift it. That statement contradicts itself, right? Exactly. The concept of omnipotence contradicts itself.

---

He is not his physical body. It is the body he makes that is limited, not himself. How is that so hard to understand? The concept of omnipotence does not contradict itself. People keep saying it does, but they never say how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

It's more like you guys get so inconfident, you throw unnecessary insults to perfectly good meaning people. There is a debate, wether you like it or not, and I've heard both sides say some good points.

---

Inconfident my ass. And I don't insult either. Telling an ignorant person that they're ignorant isn't insulting them, it's informing them. There's a huge difference. You can fix ignorant. All you have to do is study something with an open mind.

To the extent that it can be considered verbally abusive, it's well asked for because your ignorant and backwards beliefs deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized.

An "unstoppable force" and an immovable object cannot exist in the same
universe. Their existences would contradict the other, much in the way that
UM already stated (minus omnipotence, I'm not sure how that was supposed to
be tied to his point).

Can God create a human whose will he is unable to control?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Invader

An "unstoppable force" and an immovable object cannot exist in the same universe.

---

It can, if they are both the same object. Which is what some people think god is. He can move any object and nothing can stop him. However even if nothing can move you, you can move yourself. And even if nothing can stop you, you can stop yourself. When you think about it like that, it makes sense that he can be both. It just becomes silly when you think it in a way such as, "Can god slap himself so hard that he moves?" Obviously its just a silly question.

I googled this question a long time ago to find out what people thought of it and found what I believe to be a very good answer. Just to be clear, i did not write this. The author is Gregory Koukl. Here is a link to where i found it.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5160


This is known as a pseudo-question. It’s like asking, “Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?” or, “If God beat Himself up, who would win?” or, “Can God’s power defeat His own power?”

The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase “stronger than” can only be used when two subjects are in view, for example, Bill is stronger than Bob, my left arm is stronger than my right arm, etc. Since God is only one, and since He has no parts, it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself. That’s why this is a pseudo-question. It proves nothing about any deficiency in God because the question itself is incoherent.

This pits one aspect of God’s ability against another--in this case, His creative ability against His ability to lift. The goal is to show that there are some things God can’t do, thus undermining the Christian concept of an omnipotent Creator. This illustration, however, miscasts the biblical notion of omnipotence, and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy.

Omnipotence doesn’t mean that God can do anything. The concept of omnipotence has to do with power, not ability per se. In fact, there are many things God can’t do. He can’t make square circles. He can’t create a morally free creature who couldn’t choose evil. He can’t instantly create a sixty-year-old man (not one that looks sixty, but one that is sixty). None of these, though, have to do with power. Instead, they are logically contradictory, and therefore contrary to God’s rational nature. The “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?” challenge is no threat to Christian theism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

He is not his physical body. It is the body he makes that is limited, not himself. How is that so hard to understand? The concept of omnipotence does not contradict itself. People keep saying it does, but they never say how.

---

We never say how? I think you need to take another look at my post you quoted, for one thing. If God is infinitely powerful, then HE CAN... DO ANYTHING. Therefore, he can... make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. Do you see what I am saying? He can... come in the form of a body that is not limited. He can... make the rock so heavy he cannot lift it. He can... lift that same rock. He can... DO ANYTHING. Are you with me so far? Okay, did you catch the contradiction? He can... create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it AND lift the rock. That is a contradiction, and it is what is involved in infinite power. Therefore, the concept of infinite power contradicts itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FortressForever

This is known as a pseudo-question. It’s like asking, “Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?” or, “If God beat Himself up, who would win?” or, “Can God’s power defeat His own power?”

The phrase “stronger than” can only be used when two subjects are in view

---

Then what God can do is limited. He is therefore not infinitely powerful. The Bible says he is.

The bible says no such thing. You are just making that up. Whenever the bible talks about god being all powerful, they speak of it in the context that FortressForever just explained.

Gen. 18:14
Nothing is too hard for the Lord.

Job 42:2
God can do everything.

Matt. 19:26
All things are possible with God.

Lk. 1:37
Nothing is impossible for God.

Clearly you didn't even read my reply on the post FortressForever made. Since all the quotes mean exactly what we said, and not a single one says he is 'infinitely powerful' in the context you are speaking of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Clearly you didn't even read my reply on the post FortressForever made. Since all the quotes mean exactly what we said, and not a single one says he is 'infinitely powerful' in the context you are speaking of.

---

Do you understand what the word "nothing" means? Do you understand what the word "everything" means? Do you understand what the word "all" means? They don't leave room for exceptions, and no exceptions are stated in those verses. This is an open and shut case.

No one talks like that, and neither does the bible. No where does it ever say, or imply that god can do self contradicting things that you are claiming should be possible.

Like they pointed out, God can't be stronger than himself. It is a statement which doesn't make any sense. So by asking if god can be stronger than himself, you are really not asking anything at all.

No where does it say in the bible, that god is more powerful than himself. Only that he is the most powerful being in the world and that he can do anything. Yes, it says he can do anything. But what you are saying isn't anything, it is nothing.

You asked me, if I knew what the word nothing means but it seems like perhaps you do not. Can god do something that doesn't exist? No because its nothing. It is not there.

God can do all things. For something to fit under the category of 'all' it has to be something that exist. if it doesn't exist it is not including under all things. The same applies to everything.

Omnipotent: having or exercising exclusive and unlimited authority.

Almighty: having very great power, influence,

All-powerful: having or exercising exclusive and unlimited authority; omnipotent.

Three things used to describe him, and none of them say what you are claiming they say. You are using very select, narrow definitions that are not commonly used in English. What I just put up there, is what everyone thinks when they say the words. And none of them imply a self contradicting being.

You can be both all powerful, and still not be able to created a rock you can't lift. Since there is no such thing, and its just gibberish.

"God can do all things. For something to fit under the category of 'all' it has to be something that exist. if it doesn't exist it is not including under all things. The same applies to everything."

The universe didn't exist before god created it. Apparently he can bring things into existence, so this is not a restriction. Wouldn't it make more sense just to say that god isn't all powerful and can't do things which make no sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

The universe didn't exist before god created it. Apparently he can bring things into existence, so this is not a restriction. Wouldn't it make more sense just to say that god isn't all powerful and can't do things which make no sense?

---

What he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We never say how? I think you need to take another look at my post you quoted, for one thing. If God is infinitely powerful, then HE CAN... DO ANYTHING. Therefore, he can... make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. Do you see what I am saying? He can... come in the form of a body that is not limited. He can... make the rock so heavy he cannot lift it. He can... lift that same rock. He can... DO ANYTHING. Are you with me so far? Okay, did you catch the contradiction? He can... create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it AND lift the rock. That is a contradiction, and it is what is involved in infinite power. Therefore, the concept of infinite power contradicts itself.



Then what God can do is limited. He is therefore not infinitely powerful. The Bible says he is.

---

Okay. Let me try once more. Two physical bodies. One cannot. One can. God can do anything, but canalso reduce himself in the physical realm so he can't. So technically, in this single
scenario, for a limited amount of time, the physical body that God created is unable to do so. Yes. But does that mean that he is now disabled for eternity? No. You have enough flour to bake anything. Take away to much, and you can't bake anything. Put it back, and you can. It isn't a perfect analogy, but it's the closest I can come up with while drowsily lying in my bed at 1:54 A.M

God is so omnipotent that he can both create a rock so big that he cannot lift it while at the same time not being able to lift it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Inconfident my ass. And I don't insult either. Telling an ignorant person that they're ignorant isn't insulting them, it's informing them. There's a huge difference. You can fix ignorant. All you have to do is study something with an open mind.

To the extent that it can be considered verbally abusive, it's well asked for because your ignorant and backwards beliefs deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized.

---

Excuse me, but how old are you? If you've finished a 4th education, you should now know the difference between opinion, and fact.

FYI, I was once very open minded. Surveyed the books, and made up my mind. I am open minded in many aspects. But as far as the earths origins go, yes. I'm closed to that.

However, it is only your opinion that I am ignorant. Therefore, you have no business saying "your ignorant!!"

Now, you can say "I think your ignorant, and this is why. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah etc."

Also, your getting rather aggresive and protective, and this is a sign of inconfidence. Me, the only reason I care beans about wether you beleive my theory is because I beleive you are in danger. If I did not beleieve you were in danger, trust me. My debating days would have been over long ago.

I don't have time for immaturity. Say somthing scientific in your next post, and I will attend to it. If you continue braying about how stupid I am, as are all creationists(your opinion) you will be ignored.

It doesn't really matter. There are three ways you can put it. God is so powerful that he can indeed make a rock he can't lift and also lift it. The question doesn't make any sense, so doesn't matter. Or god is just extremely powerful, and was strong enough to create the world and all in it yet at the same time isn't infinitely powerful.

You can be a christian and believe any three of them, and their all valid.

The problem I am having with Universal Mind is that he claims the first makes no sense, he simply ignores the second and won't comment on it, and says the bible rules out the third(which it doesn't).

If there is a god, all three are possible and are logical. I have yet to hear a reason, why all three are totally impossible.

I gave you Bible quotes that mention nothing about exceptions. I don't know what else to tell you. Here, here's Abba.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctzIEjjOfd4

Thank you for this thread and for proving that the question is an absolute farce. It's a word game used to try and confuse people in their beliefs because there are some strange and very vain people who demand that absolutely no one be allowed believe in God.

God or no God, it's wrong to try and trick people out of their faith simply because for whatever the reason, YOU don't want them to have it. It stems from nothing but selfishness and arrogance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifuturist

Thank you for this thread and for proving that the question is an absolute farce. It's a word game used to try and confuse people in their beliefs because there are some strange and very vain people who demand that absolutely no one be allowed believe in God.

God or no God, it's wrong to try and trick people out of their faith simply because for whatever the reason, YOU don't want them to have it. It stems from nothing but selfishness and arrogance.

---

Firt of all, the scenario illustrates the illogic of the concept of infinite power. You can't counter counter the point I made about it. If you could, you would have. Second of all, you might as well deliberately show up in the middle of a stage while a play is going on and complain that people are acting. This is a religion forum. People discuss religion in great depth in these places. If you are offended by religious discussion between atheists and theists, you are in about the last place in the world you should be. Your stupid outburst stems from insecurity in your beliefs. I am not trying to convert you. If my goal were to convert people to atheism, I would be talking about it to people who don't sign up to learn my perspectives on religion. I don't debate unwilling participants. Here, I am trying to debate and understand because this is the ultimate appropriate place for it. Is it not? If you don't like such things, then turn on the television and try to find Robert Tilton. I'm sure he won't express any disagreement with your core beliefs.

Or what you bellieve to be illogic. You still haven't proved it's flaws, and you never will any more than I can prove them. You'll argue to the ends of the earth. If your desperate enough, you'll argue past the boundaries of logical science(Ive seen it happen. People can get really protective of what they believe.) fact is, no one here who has made up their mind on the issue is going to change it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FortressForever

I googled this question a long time ago to find out what people thought of it and found what I believe to be a very good answer. Just to be clear, i did not write this. The author is Gregory Koukl. Here is a link to where i found it.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5160


This is known as a pseudo-question. It’s like asking, “Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?” or, “If God beat Himself up, who would win?” or, “Can God’s power defeat His own power?”

The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase “stronger than” can only be used when two subjects are in view, for example, Bill is stronger than Bob, my left arm is stronger than my right arm, etc. Since God is only one, and since He has no parts, it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself. That’s why this is a pseudo-question. It proves nothing about any deficiency in God because the question itself is incoherent.

This pits one aspect of God’s ability against another--in this case, His creative ability against His ability to lift. The goal is to show that there are some things God can’t do, thus undermining the Christian concept of an omnipotent Creator. This illustration, however, miscasts the biblical notion of omnipotence, and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy.

Omnipotence doesn’t mean that God can do anything. The concept of omnipotence has to do with power, not ability per se. In fact, there are many things God can’t do. He can’t make square circles. He can’t create a morally free creature who couldn’t choose evil. He can’t instantly create a sixty-year-old man (not one that looks sixty, but one that is sixty). None of these, though, have to do with power. Instead, they are logically contradictory, and therefore contrary to God’s rational nature. The “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?” challenge is no threat to Christian theism

---

Well said. :goodjob2: It is a meaningless question, mistaking what both God and Omnipotence are from the beginning. I've been over this "puzzle" before...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We never say how? I think you need to take another look at my post you quoted, for one thing. If God is infinitely powerful, then HE CAN... DO ANYTHING.

---

God is Omnipotent because He influences and propagates all existence throughout all time and space, forever. He cannot be destroyed, because God is the Absolute Reality. Since God Created all Existence He therefore contextualizes it under His own influence, that nothing happens except for what needs to.

If God, in his Omnipotence, Created Earth and its Gravity, it doesn't mean that "God can make" the Earth shrink into a weightless ping-pong ball on a whim. This is coming from the human imagination, not from God. Whatever is impossible simply is not Real, and has no momentum to be (that which is even potentially impossible).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Therefore, he can... make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. Do you see what I am saying? He can... come in the form of a body that is not limited. He can... make the rock so heavy he cannot lift it. He can... lift that same rock. He can... DO ANYTHING. Are you with me so far? Okay, did you catch the contradiction? He can... create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it AND lift the rock. That is a contradiction, and it is what is involved in infinite power. Therefore, the concept of infinite power contradicts itself.

---

Infinite Power is intrinsic to the Infinite Reality - Reality cannot become non-Reality, as God cannot become Non-God. The Infinite Reality cannot contradict itself and be something it isn't. It's stupidly simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Okay. Let me try once more. Two physical bodies. One cannot. One can. God can do anything, but canalso reduce himself in the physical realm so he can't. So technically, in this single
scenario, for a limited amount of time, the physical body that God created is unable to do so. Yes. But does that mean that he is now disabled for eternity? No. You have enough flour to bake anything. Take away to much, and you can't bake anything. Put it back, and you can. It isn't a perfect analogy, but it's the closest I can come up with while drowsily lying in my bed at 1:54 A.M

---

I don't think this connects with the OP question. God alone is Omnipotent, and that excludes limitation of human bodies and rock-lifting. God has no human characteristic. Rock-lifting itself is already a limitation, and it doesn't need to be done. Omnipotence is existential and nonlinear, there's no way to prove it because proof itself is out of the question. Real Power really just stands on its own without any need whatsoever.

He doesn't need to lift it, he is the rock.

But he could probably make a rock so big it could blot out the entire universe and there would be no up or down, so lifting would be irrelevant. You can only have movement relative to something else, so if the rock eclipses the entire universe, there is nowhere for it to move. Not even god could move it without first creating a second rock as a reference point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Firt of all, the scenario illustrates the illogic of the concept of infinite power.

---

There you go, you just answered it yourself. If the concept of infinite power is illogical, then no logical person would believe it. If that is the case, then clearly when someone said God is all powerful, they meant that he was the most powerful being in the world and can do anything but contradict himself.

You are simply assuming that the person writing the bible, was illogical and so picked the illogical definition. Which is why you are making such silly arguments.

Assume for the sake of this argument that the person writing the bible was logical. If they say that god is all powerful, and all powerful could mean he is either A. the most powerful being in the world, or B. has infinite power and self contradicting power, and B is illogical, then clearly they meant A.


The bible doesn't mention any limits, because for all practical and real purposes, he has no limits. As you just said, only an illogical person would believe that god could create a rock so big even he can not pick it up. If no logical person would believe it, then there is no reason to write it. It is clear, to all logical people that he can do anything, but illogical things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Whatever is impossible simply is not Real, and has no momentum to be (that which is even potentially impossible).

---

Then there are things he cannot do. The Bible says there is nothing he cannot do. Do you see the contradiction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

If the concept of infinite power is illogical, then no logical person would believe it.

---

Stop insulting Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

The bible doesn't mention any limits, because for all practical and real purposes, he has no limits. As you just said, only an illogical person would believe that god could create a rock so big even he can not pick it up. If no logical person would believe it, then there is no reason to write it. It is clear, to all logical people that he can do anything, but illogical things.

---

Is practicality mentioned in those verses? I don't recall reading anything about it.

You are just being dense on purpose. You know full well what the bible meant, and you are choosing to ignore it just so you can argue.

If I were to write down a story like this. Bob bent over and his pants ripped down the seam. Bob turned red, then ran away.

Now that sentence could have two meanings. Bob either turned the color red, as in to blush. Or that he turned red as in a republican.

Everyone here is arguing that Bob turned the color red. You are arguing that Bob became a republican. You know that it doesn't make any sense but you are still arguing it. So I have to ask, why are you arguing what you know is wrong?

But it SAYS he turned red. It SAYS he is a republican. No it doesn't say that. It says he turned red, but it doesn't say he turned republican.

If all you can do it shout really loud, that it SAYS he turned republican, then you are an idiot or you are just being a jerk.

There is two definitions of the word and even though everyone here is using the one definition, you are claiming our definition doesn't exist, even though its by far the most common definition. And stating only your definition exist, even though it makes no sense and you admit it makes no sense.

You are so hellbent on trying to prove yourself right, you can't even realize that you are arguing something that makes no sense. Everything you are saying is just gibberish.

No, this is not some guessing game about something ambiguous. Which of the following does what I quoted from the Bible say?

A. There is nothing God cannot do.
B. There is nothing within the laws of logic God cannot do.
C. There is nothing that can be done that God cannot do.
D. There is nothing God cannot do that is practical.

The correct answer is A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then there are things he cannot do. The Bible says there is nothing he cannot do. Do you see the contradiction?

---

No there isn't. Show me what God cannot do. If you resort to the hypothetical argument again, it is invalid. Impossibilities are outside Reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

No there isn't. Show me what God cannot do. If you resort to the hypothetical argument again, it is invalid. Impossibilities are outside Reality.

---

You just answered your own question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, this is not some guessing game about something ambiguous. Which of the following does what I quoted from the Bible say?

A. There is nothing God cannot do.
B. There is nothing within the laws of logic God cannot do.
C. There is nothing that can be done that God cannot do.
D. There is nothing God cannot do that is practical.

The correct answer is A.

---

You have that text/verse inaccurate and we've went over this in the other thread.
That is in a questionable format. The writer imposes a question(?) regarding God's power. Is there nothing to difficult for the Lord? See when it's taken in it's correct meaning it becomes entirely different.

No it isn't. All four meanings were conveyed in that sentence. That is especially true since it was a quote of someone speaking.

Answer me this. Why would anyone speaking about god, to another person say B,C or D, when A works just as fine and everyone understands it?

It was a quote of a everyday person speaking of god, to another person. It makes no sense that they would say the others, even if they meant them.

Here is a really good example. If Bob is the best runner in the school and a person says, "Bob is the greatest runner there is." The clear meaning isn't that he is the best runner on the entire planet. It might say that, but it is clearly not what is being conveyed in the sentence. They are stating that Bob is the greatest runner that person has met.

To make the claim that it is impossible that the person meant that bob was the greatest runner he has ever meet, because he said he was "The greatest runner there is" is silly. So why are you doing the same thing here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You have that text/verse inaccurate and we've went over this in the other thread.
That is in a questionable format. The writer imposes a question(?) regarding God's power. Is there nothing to difficult for the Lord? See when it's taken in it's correct meaning it becomes entirely different.

---

You must be talking about an, "Oh, shit, we better change that verse," interpretation you found somewhere. They did the same thing with the verse about how it's okay to beat your slaves to death as long as it takes them more than two days to die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

No it isn't. All four meanings were conveyed in that sentence. That is especially true since it was a quote of someone speaking.

Answer me this. Why would anyone speaking about god, to another person say B,C or D, when A works just as fine and everyone understands it?

It was a quote of a everyday person speaking of god, to another person. It makes no sense that they would say the others, even if they meant them.

Here is a really good example. If Bob is the best runner in the school and a person says, "Bob is the greatest runner there is." The clear meaning isn't that he is the best runner on the entire planet. It might say that, but it is clearly not what is being conveyed in the sentence. They are stating that Bob is the greatest runner that person has met.

To make the claim that it is impossible that the person meant that bob was the greatest runner he has ever meet, because he said he was "The greatest runner there is" is silly. So why are you doing the same thing here.

---

They have four different meanings. The last three impose limitation. The first one does not.

No they are not different. They are all saying the same thing in different ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

No they are not different. They are all saying the same thing in different ways.

---

So the things God cannot do don't qualify as things he cannot do?

Who created the laws of logic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So the things God cannot do don't qualify as things he cannot do?

---

That is correct. Since the things he can not do are illogical and make no sense. It might help if you look at it this way. Before the universe was created, there was nothing but god. When god gave the universe a form that exist, he created the laws of the universe. He could of created it in any form he wanted but he decided on a substantial universe where laws exist.

He could have made 2+2=5 but that only would of worked in an insubstantial and chaotic world, where things do not exist like they do in our own world.

It is entirely possible he can still do that stuff, but in the scope of our world, he can not, because it is illogical and makes no sense. It simply can not exist, ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

That is correct. Since the things he can not do are illogical and make no sense. It might help if you look at it this way. Before the universe was created, there was nothing but god. When god gave the universe a form that exist, he created the laws of the universe. He could of created it in any form he wanted but he decided on a substantial universe where laws exist.

He could have made 2+2=5 but that only would of worked in an insubstantial and chaotic world, where things do not exist like they do in our own world.

It is entirely possible he can still do that stuff, but in the scope of our world, he can not, because it is illogical and makes no sense. It simply can not exist, ever.

---

OMG! That is a freaking Brilliant Statement!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You just answered your own question.

---

You beg to show that nothing is impossible, yet you use the logic that would have your own argument falter. You may as well ask: "How can nothing be impossible if it cannot simultaneously be impossible?" These contradictory arguments are childish.

[By the way] You didn't answer my question. Please re-read it and try again.

Let me connect the dots anyhow:

Quote:

---

No there isn't. -> Show me what God cannot do. -> If you resort to the hypothetical argument again, it is invalid. (Impossibilities are outside Reality.)

---

Spoiler for Nonexistence argument again?:

If impossibilities are outside Reality, they are hypothetical. If they are hypothetical, God automatically "does" everything that is possible by the very nature of Divine Reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So the things God cannot do don't qualify as things he cannot do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

That is correct.

---

Your notion violates what is possibly the most fundamental law of logic. A thing equals itself. Reflexive Property of Equality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Since the things he can not do are illogical and make no sense. It might help if you look at it this way. Before the universe was created, there was nothing but god. When god gave the universe a form that exist, he created the laws of the universe. He could of created it in any form he wanted but he decided on a substantial universe where laws exist.

He could have made 2+2=5 but that only would of worked in an insubstantial and chaotic world, where things do not exist like they do in our own world.

It is entirely possible he can still do that stuff, but in the scope of our world, he can not, because it is illogical and makes no sense. It simply can not exist, ever.

---

Can God still make 2 + 2 = 5 and arrange the other laws of logic to where the universe is not chaotic as a result?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You beg to show that nothing is impossible, yet you use the logic that would have your own argument falter. You may as well ask: "How can nothing be impossible if it cannot simultaneously be impossible?" These contradictory arguments are childish.

---

What in the world are you talking about? Your posts are approaching dadaism. I can only respond to what I guess your post to mean.... I know that the concept of infinite power contradicts itself. You are preaching to the atheist choir. I am talking about a Biblical concept, not one that I agree with. Get it?

The Bible does not say there is nothing God cannot do that is possible. It says there is nothing God cannot do.... [That's it. Nothing after that. No limitations whatsoever mentioned.] There is no way around that.

You said, "Show me what God cannot do." Then you said what he cannot do. Get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Your notion violates what is possibly the most fundamental law of logic. A thing equals itself. Reflexive Property of Equality.

---

It might be you who has forgotten that. Does "do" mean "do not?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What in the world are you talking about? Your posts are approaching dadaism. I can only respond to what I guess your post to mean.... I know that the concept of infinite power contradicts itself. You are preaching to the atheist choir. I am talking about a Biblical concept, not one that I agree with. Get it?

---

It's irrelevant whether you agree or not, but please don't contaminate your posts with inconsistency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Bible does not say there is nothing God cannot do that is possible. It says there is nothing God cannot do.... [That's it. Nothing after that. No limitations whatsoever mentioned.] There is no way around that.

You said, "Show me what God cannot do." Then you said what he cannot do. Get it?

---

Yes it is very simple and haven't bothered to count how many times we've been over it together. You're being ignorant, and you're probably missing the fundamental point of this thread.

"What God cannot do" is hypothetical, do YOU get it??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

It might be you who has forgotten that. Does "do" mean "do not?"

---

Read again. I said "cannot do" in both instances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

It's irrelevant whether you agree or not, but please don't contaminate your posts with inconsistency.

---

Don't make empty comments about inconsistency. Say what you are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Yes it is very simple and haven't bothered to count how many times we've been over it together. You're being ignorant, and you're probably missing the fundamental point of this thread.

---

Wow, more emptiness. That must be really convenient for you. You said there are things God cannot do after saying there is nothing God cannot do. A five year old would understand the contradiction in that. Try being intellectually honest now. Do you think you can do it? I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

"What God cannot do" is hypothetical, do YOU get it??

---

Hypothetical? Oh, so there aren't actually things God cannot do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Read again. I said "cannot do" in both instances.

---

You did in your response to Alric, but essentially that's not your problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hypothetical? Oh, so there aren't actually things God cannot do?

---

Who is to say what is not possible? To negate what is possible for God? It is all imaginary. Do you know what "hypothetical" means? Basically, something that is hypothetical only exists inside your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You did in your response to Alric, but essentially that's not your problem.

---

Then what was your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Who is to say what is not possible?

---

You, Alric, and Ne-yo seem to think you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

To negate what is possible for God? It is all imaginary.

---

Then why do you keep doing it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Do you know what "hypothetical" means? Basically, something that is hypothetical only exists inside your head.

---

In other words, some things are impossible for God because they are only hypothetical.

Luke 1:37
Nothing is impossible for God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then what was your point?

---

I was referring to your self-contradictory argument, which concerns God not being able to do "not-doingness", yet He is supposed to be able to do anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You, Alric, and Ne-yo seem to think you are.

Then why do you keep doing it?

---

I have been affirming that God is Omnipotent because impossibilities are outside Reality - which is the Absolute, whereas you are denying God's Omnipotence because God's Omnipotence cannot contradict itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

In other words, some things are impossible for God because they are only hypothetical.

Luke 1:37
Nothing is impossible for God.

---

Impossibility is hypothetical, and "nothing" is hypothetical, just like the Omnipotence that *should be able to* destroy itself.

The words written in the bible are up to anybody's interpretation. Just like any other religous scripture.
Some people interpret everything in the bible literally.
Some people interpret everything symbolicly.
And I know some people who interpret some parts of the bible literally, and some of it symbolicly.
It all depends on how you interpret it.
"God can do anything" and "there is nothing that God cannot do", can mean totally different things depending on how you interpret them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I was referring to your self-contradictory argument, which concerns God not being able to do "not-doingness", yet He is supposed to be able to do anything.

---

Not being able to do no-doingness? What in the #$@* are you talking about? I think you might be confusing what I believe and what the Bible says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I have been affirming that God is Omnipotent because impossibilities are outside Reality - which is the Absolute, whereas you are denying God's Omnipotence because God's Omnipotence cannot contradict itself.

---

Being outside of the scope of reality is what would make something an impossibility. The Bible says God does not have those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Impossibility is hypothetical, and "nothing" is hypothetical, just like the Omnipotence that *should be able to* destroy itself.

---

Of course an impossiblity, which is a thing that cannot be done, falls outside of the scope of tangible and logical reality. It is still something that cannot be done. It is a principle or concept that is not real and is something in that way. There is a word for it. The Bible says there is nothing God cannot do. If you cannot create a square circle, then creating a square circle is something you cannot do. Is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Impossibility is hypothetical, and "nothing" is hypothetical, just like the Omnipotence that *should be able to* destroy itself.

---

Is destroying himself something God cannot do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fableflame

"God can do anything" and "there is nothing that God cannot do", can mean totally different things depending on how you interpret them.

---

I disagree. If there is nothing a being can't do, then nothing is impossible for that being. If a guy says, "There is nothing I can't do with my hands," can't you prove him wrong by pointing out that he can't draw a square circle with them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I disagree. If there is nothing a being can't do, then nothing is impossible for that being. If a guy says, "There is nothing I can't do with my hands," can't you prove him wrong by pointing out that he can't draw a square circle with them?

---

Again, it comes down to interpretation.
It's been said in this thread, but i can't be bothered to find it and quote it, that "God can do anything" meant he can do anything within rationality.
While you think that it should mean he can do anything, rational or not.
I personally think that "anything" covers rational and unrational. If God can do anything, it doesn't have to make sense. What's the point of being God if you can't bend the rules of reality every now and then? But that's how I interpret it. I can see where both arguments are coming from, but i have my own interpretation.
Do you see what I mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fableflame

Again, it comes down to interpretation.
It's been said in this thread, but i can't be bothered to find it and quote it, that "God can do anything" meant he can do anything within rationality.
While you think that it should mean he can do anything, rational or not.
I personally think that "anything" covers rational and unrational. If God can do anything, it doesn't have to make sense. What's the point of being God if you can't bend the rules of reality every now and then? But that's how I interpret it. I can see where both arguments are coming from, but i have my own interpretation.
Do you see what I mean?

---

I see what you mean, but I still don't agree. If God wrote the Bible, then he should have been as specific as he needed to be, like any good legislator. The way it is written does not mention exceptions. If ther are exceptions and the readers are just supposed to assume that, then the book is not perfectly written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I see what you mean, but I still don't agree. If God wrote the Bible, then he should have been as specific as he neede to be, like any good legislator. The way it is written does not mention exceptions. If ther are exceptions and the readers are just supposed to assume that, then the book is not perfectly written.

---

God didn't write the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fableflame

God didn't write the bible.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If God wrote the Bible

---

Then why in your last post did you talk about God writing the bible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I agree.

---

Pft. Of course not. He provided the inspiration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Pft.

---

Pft. PFT!!

http://mikefarrell.files.wordpress.c...itist-snob.jpg

Ha I was just scrolling through the forums and I thought I saw a thread called 'Can God create a cock so big...'

It didn't though. :(

[QUOTE=Universal Mind;1159793If you don't like such things, then turn on the television and try to find Robert Tilton. I'm sure he won't express any disagreement with your core beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Tilton? You're not even close.

Why are you so offended by me? It's not like I'm targeting you or something. I just don't think a riddle that can't be answered is fair way to challenge someone's belief in God.

And you think I'm stupid? Well, then...I think you're dumb.

I read somewhere that if God is in everything then God is also inside someone's butt and is also the butt itself, as well as the excrement and at the same time is someone else's face and the food that person eats. I think it was this forum. That was the best thread ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Okay. Let me try once more. Two physical bodies. One cannot. One can. God can do anything, but canalso reduce himself in the physical realm so he can't. So technically, in this single
scenario, for a limited amount of time, the physical body that God created is unable to do so. Yes. But does that mean that he is now disabled for eternity? No. You have enough flour to bake anything. Take away to much, and you can't bake anything. Put it back, and you can. It isn't a perfect analogy, but it's the closest I can come up with while drowsily lying in my bed at 1:54 A.M

---

But if the only restriction is his desire to not let himself lift it and he is still able to call back the power he requires to lift it, then he isn't exactly unable to lift it. Saying he doesn't have the power right now because he keeps himself from using it all is not a restriction if at any time he can simply will that power back and lift the rock. The only thing really preventing himself from lifting the rock is his desire to not lift it in that case. That'd be like saying it was impossible for you to make any phone calls because you unplugged your telephone. Impossible as long as the phone remains unplugged, sure, but as long as you have the ability to plug it back in and dial, it's within your power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

But if the only restriction is his desire to not let himself lift it and he is still able to call back the power he requires to lift it, then he isn't exactly unable to lift it. Saying he doesn't have the power right now because he keeps himself from using it all is not a restriction if at any time he can simply will that power back and lift the rock. The only thing really preventing himself from lifting the rock is his desire to not lift it in that case. That'd be like saying it was impossible for you to make any phone calls because you unplugged your telephone. Impossible as long as the phone remains unplugged, sure, but as long as you have the ability to plug it back in and dial, it's within your power.

---

It's the laws of nature working against the physical body he created, not his will. Of course, he made the laws of nature.

Forgive me if this is not entirely related to the "can God contradict himself?" or "bible=/=fax from heaven" discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Invader

An "unstoppable force" and an immovable object cannot exist in the same
universe. Their existences would contradict the other

---

They can, but it all depends upon your definition of "unstoppable." Is "unstoppable" "cannot be brought to a halt" or "cannot change course?" When asked the question of what occurs when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object, I've always said that the unstoppable force bounces off of the immovable object in a different direction. The immovable object has not moved, and the unstoppable force has not been stopped, but simply redirected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

It's the laws of nature working against the physical body he created, not his will. Of course, he made the laws of nature.

---

And he can change or simply overcome them at any time supposing that he's all-powerful. Yes, it is his will. You basically said he can choose to not be able to lift the rock if he chooses to put himself in a circumstance where he is unable to lift the rock. As long as he has the ability to choose to take himself out of that circumstance there is nothing but his will preventing him from actually lifting the rock. How can you say he's really trying to lift the rock when he specifically puts himself in a situation that is designed to make it so that he can't lift the rock and yet has the ability to take himself out of that situation at any time and use his magic to lift the rock? Supposing that he actually wanted to lift the rock (I.E. that it was his actual will for the rock to be lifted) he'd need only get out of that situation, which he can. There is nothing but his will which stops him from doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

And he can change or simply overcome them at any time supposing that he's all-powerful. Yes, it is his will. You basically said he can choose to not be able to lift the rock if he chooses to put himself in a circumstance where he is unable to lift the rock. As long as he has the ability to choose to take himself out of that circumstance there is nothing but his will preventing him from actually lifting the rock. How can you say he's really trying to lift the rock when he specifically puts himself in a situation that is designed to make it so that he can't lift the rock and yet has the ability to take himself out of that situation at any time and use his magic to lift the rock? Supposing that he actually wanted to lift the rock (I.E. that it was his actual will for the rock to be lifted) he'd need only get out of that situation, which he can. There is nothing but his will which stops him from doing that.

---

Exactly! You prove my point. He can do anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Exactly! You prove my point. He can do anything.

---

aaAAAHAHHAA hhhahhaaa HHHAAHHHHAAAAAAHHHHAHhaahhaahhaha hhaHHHAaaaahHHH aaahhHHHHHHHaa hHHAHHAHHHAAAhh

You're trying to kill me or something!

You are still just speaking gibberish. I can ask, can god do cheese? No, that sentence makes no sense. So god can not do cheese, there for god isn't all powerful. There is something he can not do, he can not do cheese. That is basically the kind of argument you are making. All rational and logical people know you are not actually saying anything, you just sound like you are.

Er, no, that's not analogous.

Pretty sure 'cheese' isn't a verb.

It is now. example: Mark75 cheesed all over Noogah's argument.

God can make a rock so big he couldn't lift it.

Then he would lift it.

ooOoOoooOOOOOOooooOoooOOOOOOoOoooOOoooo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I see what you mean, but I still don't agree. If God wrote the Bible, then he should have been as specific as he needed to be, like any good legislator. The way it is written does not mention exceptions. If ther are exceptions and the readers are just supposed to assume that, then the book is not perfectly written.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fableflame

God didn't write the bible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I agree.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fableflame

Then why in your last post did you talk about God writing the bible?

---

UM, you haven't answered my question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifuturist

Tilton? You're not even close.

Why are you so offended by me? It's not like I'm targeting you or something. I just don't think a riddle that can't be answered is fair way to challenge someone's belief in God.

And you think I'm stupid? Well, then...I think you're dumb.

I read somewhere that if God is in everything then God is also inside someone's butt and is also the butt itself, as well as the excrement and at the same time is someone else's face and the food that person eats. I think it was this forum. That was the best thread ever.

---

Don't ever assume my sarcasm is a reflection of negative emotion. I love these debates. I also didn't call you stupid. Thanks for loving my thread about God's omnipresence, if that's what you're talking about. However, I said that if God is everywhere then his entire body exists in all possible sizes in all places, so his penis is up your ass and his balls are in your mouth.

Noogah, thanks for the admission of what the concept of God is supposed to be.

Fableflame, I talked about God writing the Bible because Christians generally believe the Bible is the "word of God". Humans supposedly wrote the words with their hands, but they are still supposed to be God's words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It is now. example: Mark75 cheesed all over Noogah's argument.

---

Uh...do you mean to say he supported it? Whatever. This is getting entirely to strange.

Seriously though, your mistake is that you believe the laws of nature are present everywhere. Even outside of the physical realm, and the God is bound by our laws of nature and logic. Despite that, my argument still make sense, and you have yet to debunk it. You keep saying stuff like "It only works because he makes it work." (Obviously paraphrased.) Well, you can see it that way, but it's more like he lets it work that way. As I said before, he plays by his own rules on the physical realm. Besides, who cares? Either way he CAN do either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Not being able to do no-doingness? What in the #$@* are you talking about? I think you might be confusing what I believe and what the Bible says.

---

I simplified your claim - the claim in which you say something with a blanket statement has to contradict itself in order for it to be valid. :D Gee it still sounds bad. Hahaha! If something is outside Reality for example, you still think it should be doable by God for Him to be Omnipotent, whereas Omnipotence would not actually allow it from the beginning. You'd go on to say that therefore it is not Omnipotence, but that is your own category error. Contexts and key words are very important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Being outside of the scope of reality is what would make something an impossibility. The Bible says God does not have those.

---

God does not have what - impossibilities? No, there is no impossibilities in context. On the other hand you could still interpret it as you do, as a Bible or wording flaw (Non-God is impossible), but it still has nothing against Omnipotence. You could also say that God doesn't "do" anything at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Of course an impossiblity, which is a thing that cannot be done, falls outside of the scope of tangible and logical reality. It is still something that cannot be done. It is a principle or concept that is not real and is something in that way. There is a word for it.

---

That's not the point. There is also a concept for non-existence, and a whole bunch of other imaginary opposites. But they're still hypothetical. If God did something, He would be doing everything already, because He is God and nothing is outside Himself. If there is nothing He cannot do, don't ask if He can do nothing, or ask of something that is intrinsically out of context, because it is invalid. Like Ne-yo said, INTRINSICALLY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Bible says there is nothing God cannot do. If you cannot create a square circle, then creating a square circle is something you cannot do. Is it not?

---

No, "drawing square circles" isn't something you cannot do, nor is it something you can do. It doesn't exist. It is not an example. It is a contradiction, and it has no context in which to exist. Tell me why it is valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is destroying himself something God cannot do?

---

What is your meaning of God? Destruction is out of the question; God Created All That Exists, outside time and space. God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent. He is invincible, and you only are trying to believe He must be invincible if He can destroy himself; that there's nothing He cannot do if He can do nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I disagree. If there is nothing a being can't do, then nothing is impossible for that being. If a guy says, "There is nothing I can't do with my hands," can't you prove him wrong by pointing out that he can't draw a square circle with them?

---

If that is not possible in Reality to begin with, why would it be possible with his hands? There's no connection. He is obviously saying that he can maximize his potential use with his hands, in which case square circles are out of the question. I think it's mature to say he can do anything with his hands and understand that it is within reason. Maybe you should look up the word intrinsic.

It is very simple. Those things you say are impossible, an omnipotent being would be able to make possible. Omnipotence is infinite power. It has no limits. There is no way around that. However, it IS an illogical concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.

---

:rolllaugh::rolllaugh: :clap:

I just might sig that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is very simple. Those things you say are impossible, an omnipotent being would be able to make possible. Omnipotence is infinite power. It has no limits. There is no way around that. However, it IS an illogical concept.



:rolllaugh::rolllaugh: :clap:

I just might sig that one.

---

By our standards of logic, of course. That is the big question: Can alternate realities, and different universes have different laws of logic, and nature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Exactly! You prove my point. He can do anything.

---

No, you said it was something other than his will preventing him from lifting. If you agree with what I said, it proves only that omnipotence (the ability to do anything) is impossible and illogical. This is the key part of that post: "How can you say he's really trying to lift the rock when he specifically puts himself in a situation that is designed to make it so that he can't lift the rock and yet has the ability to take himself out of that situation at any time and use his magic to lift the rock?" Do you have a good answer for that question? Is he really "trying to lift the rock" if he's intentionally making it so that he can't lift the rock? Sound more like he's trying to not lift the rock. I refer you back to my telephone analogy.

What bothers me is not these sorts of ridiculous questions, its the christians who feel like they have to come up with ridiculous explanations for them ("god can make an immovable rock and then turn himself into a finite being who can't move it even though he really can move it, blah blah blah") Just say he did make a rock he can't lift, and he is lifting it right now, and be done with it. There is no reason, given the ridiculousness of the question, why that isn't a valid and solid response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is very simple. Those things you say are impossible, an omnipotent being would be able to make possible. Omnipotence is infinite power. It has no limits. There is no way around that. However, it IS an illogical concept.

---

Yes, infinite power. I don't think you get it. Infinite power cannot self-destruct or destroy itself because:

1. That refutes the meaning of Omnipotence; I.e. that something (In this case, God) is infinite and invincible; without limit and weakness.
2. That idea is illogical and contradictory. There's no basis or possible process for that contradiction to occur. This means it is impossible.

Semantics or strawman arguments are not welcome. You say that therefore an Omnipotent being should be able to do it ("because an Omnipotent being can do anything"), but while ignoring the very understanding of what it means to be Omnipotent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

:rolllaugh::rolllaugh: :clap:

I just might sig that one.

---

I don't mind. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Infinite power cannot

---

Contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Contradiction.

---

You have a bad habit of taking things out of context, and worse - you don't even elaborate! Are you brave to explain why that is a contradiction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You have a bad habit of taking things out of context, and worse - you don't even elaborate! Are you brave to explain why that is a contradiction?

---

Do you really need it explained again? Seriously? Infinite power is the opposite of limited power. Having infinite power is all about not being unable to do something. Once you talk about not being able to do something, you are not talking about infinite power. Duh.

What did I take out of context? Let's see somebody back up that dumb ass accusation for once. Be the first. Go for it.

If your definition of Omnipotence doesn't exist, then clearly when someone says Omnipotence they are using the definition of the word that does exist.

Man...you guys seem to be able to run this thread fine without my interference. Maybe now's my chance to slip out. This thread is hurting my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

If your definition of Omnipotence doesn't exist, then clearly when someone says Omnipotence they are using the definition of the word that does exist.

---

Will you translate that into something that has to do with reality?

:popcorn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Will you translate that into something that has to do with reality?

---

Ive just been sitting back and enjoying myself. :popcorn:

This is fun. But who's side are you on anway? Your confusing me.

I think this thread has had it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fableflame

I think this thread has had it.

---

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictur...lyGrail021.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictur...lyGrail021.jpg

---

I don't understand.

Yeah. The issue is exhausted. Here is the basic conclusion that we arrived at:

God can do anything.

But he cant make himself do nothing.

He can, but at the same tim he can do anything else.

But thats circular.

No, the rules aren't necessarily the same in his universe.

If he can keep himself from doing something, he isn't all powerful.

No. He can do both at the same time.

But thats circular.

From there it just went around in loops, and now nobody believes differently. Typical of a debate. Nobody chnages their minds, but it's fun anyway becaus eit provokes interesting thoughts for both parties.

The people who wrote the bible had no concept of 'universe' 'galaxies' or anything extrasolar, much less extraUNIVERSAL. So why is it so difficult to come to the conclusion that saying that NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE for god means anything other than that other than for the sake of not losing an argument? You guys sure like drawing conclusions without much of a logical process :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Yeah. The issue is exhausted. Here is the basic conclusion that we arrived at:

God can do anything.

But he cant make himself do nothing.

He can, but at the same tim he can do anything else.

But thats circular.

No, the rules aren't necessarily the same in his universe.

If he can keep himself from doing something, he isn't all powerful.

No. He can do both at the same time.

But thats circular.

From there it just went around in loops, and now nobody believes differently. Typical of a debate. Nobody chnages their minds, but it's fun anyway becaus eit provokes interesting thoughts for both parties.

---

The Super WTF thread is in The Lounge.

God could limit himself if he wanted to, but then he would no longer be God.

The very quality of being unlimited it what makes God ...God.

I suppose you could argue that, being unlimited, he could bend the rules of logic and reality and shit and make himself limited while the the same time remaining unlimited or something like that...

But then we're just getting into paradoxes and argument becomes pointless.

Results: inconclusive.

Regardless of the debate in this thread, or, for that matter, the entire R/S subforum, people will continue believing what they believed before this thread was even conceived, much less typed out.

Therefore, this thread is pointless (and so, by the same logic, is R/S ;)).

I deem this unworthy of continued existence.

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images...y-elephant.jpg

/thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

I suppose you could argue that, being unlimited, he could bend the rules of logic and reality and shit and make himself limited while the the same time remaining unlimited or something like that...

But then we're just getting into paradoxes and argument becomes pointless.

Results: inconclusive.

---

No, not inconclusive. Those scenarios prove the absurdity of the notion of infinite power.

If God has the limit of not being able to be limited, then he is limited. So, he can't have the limit of not being able to limited because the hypothetical principle contradicts itself.

Conclusion: The science fiction idea of omnipotence is a logic clusterfuck and profoundly absurd.

Being a god has nothing to do with being unlimited. Take for example the Greek gods who could even die. No where does anything say a god has be infinite.

The general idea, is that god created the universe and is far more powerful than humans. As in creating the entire universe kind of powerful.

Even if all God ever did was create the Universe, and he was incapable of doing anything else at all. He would still be god. Which is why the entire debate is pretty pointless. Arguing that a being capable of creating the entire universe, but who is unable to make a rock so big he can't lift, can't be called a god, is just silly.

:horse: <======== This thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Being a god has nothing to do with being unlimited. Take for example the Greek gods who could even die. No where does anything say a god has be infinite.

---

Did their holy book say nothing is impossible for them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fableflame

:horse: <======== This thread.

---

:horse: :banana: :boogie: :bravo: :breakitdown: :yumdumdoodledum: :aphiusiscrazy: :muffin: :dancingcow: :cactus: :coolspot:
[Deleted By Mod]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, not inconclusive. Those scenarios prove the absurdity of the notion of infinite power.

If God has the limit of not being able to be limited, then he is limited. So, he can't have the limit of not being able to limited because the hypothetical principle contradicts itself.

Conclusion: The science fiction idea of omnipotence is a logic clusterfuck and profoundly absurd.

---

No, thats YOUR conclusion. Everybody elses personal conclusions were different, and that's the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

God could limit himself if he wanted to, but then he would no longer be God.

The very quality of being unlimited it what makes God ...God.

I suppose you could argue that, being unlimited, he could bend the rules of logic and reality and shit and make himself limited while the the same time remaining unlimited or something like that...

But then we're just getting into paradoxes and argument becomes pointless.

Results: inconclusive.

Regardless of the debate in this thread, or, for that matter, the entire R/S subforum, people will continue believing what they believed before this thread was even conceived, much less typed out.

Therefore, this thread is pointless (and so, by the same logic, is R/S ;)).

I deem this unworthy of continued existence.

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images...y-elephant.jpg

/thread

---

DITTO!!!!
<?php
thread="0"
?>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

No, thats YOUR conclusion. Everybody elses personal conclusions were different, and that's the point.

---

"In math classes, I don't think we should have answers. Instead, we should call them "impressions". If someone has a different impression from you, that's okay. Let's all be brothers."

Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

[Deleted By Mod]

---

How cool you must feel.

http://www.moonflare.com/sitm/stickinthemud.jpg

Please keep taking the fun out of debate. It makes you superawesome. Do you live near a police academy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fableflame

I don't understand.

---

The Black Knight, despite having both arms and legs lopped off, refused to accept that he had been defeated, insisting that "it's just a flesh wound!" and continuing with such threats as "I'll bite your legs off!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

No, thats YOUR conclusion. Everybody elses personal conclusions were different, and that's the point.

---

Not everyone's. That was my conclusion as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

From there it just went around in loops, and now nobody believes differently. Typical of a debate.

---

I wouldn't say it's a loop. I'd say it's more like we're just not moving at all. If you don't like the way it's proceeding, you could try responding to this:

Quote:

---

"How can you say he's really trying to lift the rock when he specifically puts himself in a situation that is designed to make it so that he can't lift the rock and yet has the ability to take himself out of that situation at any time and use his magic to lift the rock?" Do you have a good answer for that question? Is he really "trying to lift the rock" if he's intentionally making it so that he can't lift the rock? Sound more like he's trying to not lift the rock. I refer you back to my telephone analogy.

---

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

In before move to SB.
Or in before lock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

The Black Knight, despite having both arms and legs lopped off, refused to accept that he had been defeated, insisting that "it's just a flesh wound!" and continuing with such threats as "I'll bite your legs off!"

---

Oh ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you really need it explained again? Seriously? Infinite power is the opposite of limited power. Having infinite power is all about not being unable to do something. Once you talk about not being able to do something, you are not talking about infinite power. Duh.

---

I'm well aware of that, yet you can't justify yourself by trying to contradict everything, especially with semantics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What did I take out of context? Let's see somebody back up that dumb ass accusation for once. Be the first. Go for it.

---

For one example, you argued against me by cutting out half of my sentence - "Infinite power cannot", whereas the entire sentance gives meaning to what you selected ("Infinite power cannot self-destruct or destroy itself because:"). That is taking it out of context, which is a confirmation bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, not inconclusive. Those scenarios prove the absurdity of the notion of infinite power.

If God has the limit of not being able to be limited, then he is limited. So, he can't have the limit of not being able to limited because the hypothetical principle contradicts itself.

Conclusion: The science fiction idea of omnipotence is a logic clusterfuck and profoundly absurd.

---

Actually, your conclusion merely reflects the illogical, semantic, tautological reasoning that you've used. Omnipotence is not hypothetical but your argument against it is. And you need to quit your equivocation.

Break it down:

"If God has the limit of not being able to be limited, then he is limited." INVALID

In better words, you've said - "If God has the limit of being UNLIMITED, then he is limited." INVALID

You've ignored "not being able to be limited [unlimited]", giving: "If God has a limit, then he is limited." INVALID

Being unable to be destroyed or diminished is intrinsically NOT A LIMITATION.

THE INFINITE =/= FINITE

THE INVINCIBLE =/= DESTRUCTIBLE, REDUCIBLE

THAT WHICH INTRINSICALLY IS ALL POWER IS NOT SUBJECT TO WEAKNESS, DESTRUCTION OR LACK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fableflame

:horse: <======== This thread.

---

...i love you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

...i love you.

---

EEEEWWWWWWWWWWW COOTIES!!!!!!!!!!!i

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

"If God has the limit of not being able to be limited, then he is limited." INVALID

---

Can you explain why this is invalid? If god cannot do something (such as limit himself) that is by definition a limitation. Limitations are things you can't do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Being unable to be destroyed or diminished is intrinsically NOT A LIMITATION.

---

Correct, however not being able to destroy or diminish yourself is a limitation if doing so out of the scope of your ability. Can god do _____? If god has no limit to his power, it shouldn't matter what you put in the blank, the answer should be yes. You are suggesting that placing "destroy himself" returns the answer no. This must mean that you think that god has certain restrictions on his ability. It seems like you're getting frustrated because the definition of omnipotence UM is using is illogical, paradoxical and silly. But that is exactly the point UM is trying to highlight. The point he and I are trying to make is that omnipotence is impossible. And really, the definition he is using is the only really accurate and relevant one. The only other sense which "omnipotence" could be used otherwise in this kind of context would be a hyperbolic one to simply indicate an extreme (but not unlimited) amount of power, in which case it'd just make more sense to say that there are certain things god cannot do.

"however not being able to destroy or diminish yourself is a limitation"

God never said that he couldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

"however not being able to destroy or diminish yourself is a limitation"

God never said that he couldn't.

---

I wouldn't suppose he had. really, on the other hand, did. Are you here to participate in the discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I'm well aware of that, yet you can't justify yourself by trying to contradict everything, especially with semantics.

---

The contradictions prove the absurdity of the idea of omnipotence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

For one example, you argued against me by cutting out half of my sentence - "Infinite power cannot", whereas the entire sentance gives meaning to what you selected ("Infinite power cannot self-destruct or destroy itself because:"). That is taking it out of context, which is a confirmation bias.

---

It doesn't matter what you put after "cannot" in that sentence. It automatically creates a contradiction. (as Mark said) That is exactly what I was illustrating. There is no "cannot" with an omnipotent being. That is why omnipotence is an absurd principle. The nature of it contradicts itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Actually, your conclusion merely reflects the illogical, semantic, tautological reasoning that you've used. Omnipotence is not hypothetical but your argument against it is. And you need to quit your equivocation.

Break it down:

"If God has the limit of not being able to be limited, then he is limited." INVALID

In better words, you've said - "If God has the limit of being UNLIMITED, then he is limited." INVALID

You've ignored "not being able to be limited [unlimited]", giving: "If God has a limit, then he is limited." INVALID

---

My point is valid. The contradictions I am talking about are not. The invalidity you are talking about is actually the nature of omnipotence. It is self-contradictory and invalid. Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Being unable to be destroyed or diminished is intrinsically NOT A LIMITATION.

THE INFINITE =/= FINITE

THE INVINCIBLE =/= DESTRUCTIBLE, REDUCIBLE

THAT WHICH INTRINSICALLY IS ALL POWER IS NOT SUBJECT TO WEAKNESS, DESTRUCTION OR LACK

---

Infinite power is the ability to do ANYTHING, even be destroyed. If something cannot allow itself to be destroyed, that is something it CANNOT do. It is therefore not omnipotent. You are talking about invincibility, which is a quality an omnipotent being could have IF it wanted it. Invincibility and infinite power are not the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

...i love you.

---

Get a room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

Can god do _____? If god has no limit to his power, it shouldn't matter what you put in the blank, the answer should be yes.

---

Can god do keyboard? No, that sentence doesn't make any sense. Which is basically the point. You can't just string random words together, and say god should be able to do it, because he is god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Can god do keyboard? No, that sentence doesn't make any sense. Which is basically the point. You can't just string random words together, and say god should be able to do it, because he is god.

---

Yeah, it is kind of the point, isn't it? That omnipotence allows for illogical situations? That's what I've been saying all along, isn't it? Are you suggesting that a lowly thing like human logic is something that an omnipotent being would be restricted by?

"My point is valid. The contradictions I am talking about are not. The invalidity you are talking about is actually the nature of omnipotence. It is self-contradictory and invalid. Exactly. "

Way to ignore something! Lol

Don't ya hate being a minority? This is what it feels like, so remember it as long as your here.

:popcorn: this fun! I could watch you guys go back and forth forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Way to ignore something! Lol

---

Way to not say what you are talking about. Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

Yeah, it is kind of the point, isn't it? That omnipotence allows for illogical situations? That's what I've been saying all along, isn't it? Are you suggesting that a lowly thing like human logic is something that an omnipotent being would be restricted by?

---

You just killed yourself in that last sentence while trying to be funny. God invented logic, and could easily change it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Way to not say what you are talking about. Lol

---

What? Are you serious? I shouldn't have to say!

Anybody wanna join for a live debate in the dv chatroom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

God invented logic, and could easily change it.

---

Oh, he could? Then, he really can do absolutely anything. That is exactly my point about the character. Alric disagrees with you, by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

What? Are you serious? I shouldn't have to say!

---

Stop playing games. If you have a point, make it.

Poor me! Alric disagrees!! What am I gonna do!?!

Wanna join for a live debate in the dv chatroom? That would be fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

You just killed yourself in that last sentence while trying to be funny. God invented logic, and could easily change it.

---

I wasn't trying to be funny. Yes, I know. god should be able to change logic if he's all powerful. I don't understand what problem you have with what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

"My point is valid. The contradictions I am talking about are not. The invalidity you are talking about is actually the nature of omnipotence. It is self-contradictory and invalid. Exactly. "

Way to ignore something! Lol

Don't ya hate being a minority? This is what it feels like, so remember it as long as your here.

:popcorn: this fun! I could watch you guys go back and forth forever.

---

Come again?

please stop arguing about me my children i can do everything even kill myself how i would simply create a copy of my self and kill it do you see i can lift any rock even a rock that is too large for me to lift do not question me if i were to explain it to you your head would explode because that is how truly amazing i am i am a god and you all are just mortals you couldnt begin to understand my logic

AHEM:

we're using this thread as a place to debate live. Who wants to take it to the dv chatroom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by God_Almighty

please stop arguing about me my children i can do everything even kill myself how i would simply create a copy of my self and kill it do you see i can lift any rock even a rock that is too large for me to lift do not question me if i were to explain it to you your head would explode because that is how truly amazing i am i am a god and you all are just mortals you couldnt begin to understand my logic

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

AHEM:

we're using this thread as a place to debate live. Who wants to take it to the dv chatroom?

---

What difference would that make?

My point is that the definition of omnipotence, is to be extremely powerful. While a being with infinite power falls into the definition, so does one who just has power far beyond our own. In fact, when someone says something is infinitely powerful, they are not saying the being can do anything including illogical statements. They are saying that the being for all intensive purposes is so powerful and so beyond us they can do anything, and this may or may not include self contradicting and illogical things.

My problem is with anyone who say god is omnipotent, and because he is omnipotent he can do illogical statements, and because he can do illogical statements does not exist. I have a problem with that, because one, He can be omnipotent, but he doesn't have to be, he could just be extremely powerful and the creater of the world. Two, if you believe he is omnipotent, then you can logically say he can do anything, except for silly illogical statements which make no sense. Or you can say he can even do that, but it is outside our perception to see.

You can't say, he is omnipotent, and omnipotent can't exist and so God doesn't exist. That is just trying to be argumentative. Which is basically what Universal Mind is being. He refuse to accept anything less than someone saying God can't exist. People said well god doesn't have to be infinitely powerful and he said no, God has to be. People said, well okay he can do it but maybe we cant perceive it and he said no, we have to be able to perceive it. He is simply being thick headed and trying to argue with people. Otherwise, he would of accept what everyone else said. Which logically explained it all.

Well people, this has been fun. I shall return tomorrow. And btw, new guy. Who's side are you on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

My point is that the definition of omnipotence, is to be extremely powerful.

---

That is one of the lesser defintions in the dictionary, but it is not what the Bible says about God. The Bible says in very simple and exceptionless terms that nothing is impossible for God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Which is basically what Universal Mind is being. He refuse to accept anything less than someone saying God can't exist. People said well god doesn't have to be infinitely powerful and he said no, God has to be. People said, well okay he can do it but maybe we cant perceive it and he said no, we have to be able to perceive it. He is simply being thick headed and trying to argue with people. Otherwise, he would of accept what everyone else said. Which logically explained it all.

---

You are straight up pulling things out of your ass. Quote me on where I said we would have to perceive God. When did I said God would have to be infinitely powerful? I said the Bible says he is. Liar.

The Bible says nothing is impossible for God. If that is true, he could make suffering unnecessary. Suffering exists. Therefore God is either not really infinitely powerful and the Bible is wrong or God is not totally good. Not existing at all qualifies as both. That is the issue that led to this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

My point is that the definition of omnipotence, is to be extremely powerful. While a being with infinite power falls into the definition, so does one who just has power far beyond our own. In fact, when someone says something is infinitely powerful, they are not saying the being can do anything including illogical statements.

---

Literally speaking, the ability to do anything is the only definition of omnipotence. Anything else is hyperbolic. You are using the hyperbolic definition and so I'm not arguing against you. I'm talking about the concept of a god who can literally do absolutely anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

They are saying that the being for all intensive purposes is so powerful and so beyond us they can do anything, and this may or may not include self contradicting and illogical things.

---

Are they saying that or are you saying that? As far as I can tell, Noogah does believe in a god that can do absolutely anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

My problem is with anyone who say god is omnipotent, and because he is omnipotent he can do illogical statements, and because he can do illogical statements does not exist.

---

I'm not saying that this disproves every possible concept of god. I am saying that it disproves that specific god, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

Can you explain why this is invalid? If god cannot do something (such as limit himself) that is by definition a limitation. Limitations are things you can't do.

---

I thought I explained enough; I broke it down. You're saying it is a limitation that something is unlimited? You're saying it is a limitation that something is unable to contradict itself? Is existence "limited" to existence only? This is just word games.

The "limit" is defined as a restriction of ability. Yet to be able to be limited is not actually an ability to begin with, in the context of the unlimited, and that itself, by definition, has no reason to be contradictory. That which is infinite is not limited to itself, it is unlimited itself. "Restriction to restriction" is redundant.

If something infinite can intrinsically and simultaneously be finite, elaborate, and explain why that should prove that it is only infinite. If this itself, is your argument against it, you're mixing paradigms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

Correct, however not being able to destroy or diminish yourself is a limitation if doing so out of the scope of your ability. Can god do _____? If god has no limit to his power, it shouldn't matter what you put in the blank, the answer should be yes. You are suggesting that placing "destroy himself" returns the answer no. This must mean that you think that god has certain restrictions on his ability. It seems like you're getting frustrated because the definition of omnipotence UM is using is illogical, paradoxical and silly. But that is exactly the point UM is trying to highlight. The point he and I are trying to make is that omnipotence is impossible. And really, the definition he is using is the only really accurate and relevant one. The only other sense which "omnipotence" could be used otherwise in this kind of context would be a hyperbolic one to simply indicate an extreme (but not unlimited) amount of power, in which case it'd just make more sense to say that there are certain things god cannot do.

---

"Not being able to destroy yourself" is neither an ability nor a limitation; coming from something that is indestructible! That which is non-linear cannot be destroyed or opposed. Both "no ability for self-destruction" and "infinite, indestructible power" are the same, and are importantly by definition. You just seem to want this to disprove or contradict itself, but it can't occur because it is not arguable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

"however not being able to destroy or diminish yourself is a limitation"

God never said that he couldn't.

---

God never said anything. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The contradictions prove the absurdity of the idea of omnipotence.

---

The contradictions are in your argument. You're not seeing that they are not applicable. They're exclusively within your argument alone and really have no way to apply, and if they did, Reality wouldn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It doesn't matter what you put after "cannot" in that sentence. It automatically creates a contradiction. (as Mark said) That is exactly what I was illustrating. There is no "cannot" with an omnipotent being. That is why omnipotence is an absurd principle. The nature of it contradicts itself.

---

Ok here's another example.

God one with all Reality - the Absolute. But Reality cannot become non-Reality and neither can non-Reality become Reality. This is the all-encompassing Omnipotence; there is nothing outside of itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

My point is valid. The contradictions I am talking about are not. The invalidity you are talking about is actually the nature of omnipotence. It is self-contradictory and invalid. Exactly.

---

Once again you're not really saying anything, but just repeating nonsense. Again, if something infinite can intrinsically and simultaneously be finite, elaborate, and explain why that should prove that it is only infinite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Infinite power is the ability to do ANYTHING, even be destroyed.

---

Why? What makes it infinite power then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If something cannot allow itself to be destroyed, that is something it CANNOT do. It is therefore not omnipotent.

---

LOL No, therefore it is Omnipotent. That "it is something it cannot do" is beside the point that it cannot be itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are talking about invincibility, which is a quality an omnipotent being could have IF it wanted it. Invincibility and infinite power are not the same thing.

---

No, my point is: Invincibility and infinite power are one and the same. And because they are, there is nothing an Omnipotent being really needs to do at all, but simply be itself. There is no need to do anything because that would imply limitation, a task, and a requirement to be fulfilled or a need to travel from here to there. It is hard to understand because it falls within the non-dualistic and nonlinear paradigm. It stands on its own, like Reality. Self evident, yet obscured by conceptualization.

Really, the contradictions are not mine. They are what you run into when you examine infinite power hard enough, and infinite power is what the Bible says God has. Invincibility is the nature of being undestroyable. Infinite power is the ability to DO ANYTHING. An infinitely powerful being can be invincible if it wants to be, but it does not have to. Not being able to give up infinite power is not part of the definition of infinite power. You made that up. If there is anything whatsoever a being cannot do, it is not infinitely powerful. I am tired of explaining this to you. My face is blue. I know you get my point by now. Good luck to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

OMG I THOUGHT I ALREADY ELEPHANT CRUSHED THIS

---

But God is here. More importantly, I am here. Your efforts are in vain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by God_Almighty

i am outside and i am inside because i am omniwhatsits so that means im everywhere even inside you and under your bed im like a stalker that stalks everybody all the time because im god man

---

I'll get my buddies here to help me then. They're on their way. Start running.

It is not hyperbole, that is the actual definition of the word. The vast majority of people who use the word, means just what I said. For all practical purposes there is no difference between being able to do everything, and being able to do everything minus illogical and nonsensical things. It is unreasonable to demand, that everyone stop to explain the difference between them, whenever they are speaking about the subject. The fact is, the bible never makes the claim that you say it does. The only reason you say it does, is because as far as you know, it never goes into details explaining the obscure and hardly used definition of the world. Though since you never actually read the bible, you wouldn't know.

In fact, if you were to say infinitely powerful you could still make the claim that it does not include contradicting and illogical powers. They are not real limits on his power, and even if you thought they were he would still be infinitely more powerful than anyone on earth.

I give up. You guys have totally lost me.:shock:

The desire for the inability to lift a rock is the very Love that God is. The One and Whole created the Many and Seperate to Know Itself by way of the splendid contrast we find in this dualistic 'reality'. In this wonderful world of opposites God truly can Know the experience of being 'unable to lift a rock'. This beautiful, Divine 'forgetting' is what allows God this seemingly paradoxical 'power'.

I would STRONGLY and FERVENTLY recommend "A Course in Miracles" to any one seeking the Light.

Love,

Daen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

It is not hyperbole, that is the actual definition of the word. The vast majority of people who use the word, means just what I said. For all practical purposes there is no difference between being able to do everything, and being able to do everything minus illogical and nonsensical things. It is unreasonable to demand, that everyone stop to explain the difference between them, whenever they are speaking about the subject. The fact is, the bible never makes the claim that you say it does. The only reason you say it does, is because as far as you know, it never goes into details explaining the obscure and hardly used definition of the world. Though since you never actually read the bible, you wouldn't know.

---

None of the verses I quoted use the word "omnipotent", so the back seat definion you are conveniently using is irrelevant.

How do you know whether or not I've ever read the Bible? I was a Christian until I was 16. Leaping to conclusions about me is not going to get you around what I have said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

In fact, if you were to say infinitely powerful you could still make the claim that it does not include contradicting and illogical powers.

---

You are talking about limits on power. Infinite power involves the absence of limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

They are not real limits on his power

---

That's just ridiculous. If they limit his power, as in prevent him from doing certain things, they are limits on his power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

even if you thought they were he would still be infinitely more powerful than anyone on earth.

---

Big fucking deal.

I know you get my point. I'm through in here until new material shows up.

guys quit arguing now im going to go to bed yes even god sleeps so dont keep arguing while im gone ok stop arguing or ill damn you all to hell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Really, the contradictions are not mine. They are what you run into when you examine infinite power hard enough, and infinite power is what the Bible says God has. Invincibility is the nature of being undestroyable. Infinite power is the ability to DO ANYTHING. An infinitely powerful being can be invincible if it wants to be, but it does not have to. Not being able to give up infinite power is not part of the definition of infinite power. You made that up. If there is anything whatsoever a being cannot do, it is not infinitely powerful. I am tired of explaining this to you. My face is blue. I know you get my point by now. Good luck to you. .

---

Separating the concept of Omnipotence from that of infinite power doesn't get you anywhere really. Remember that you are talking about God, and so put the issue into context and consider that God's own destruction is impossible. Wants and deeds also don't exist for God.

Sure I do get your point. But you need to address my points; you seem to be ignoring certain questions too. You're not blue in the face yet. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

None of the verses I quoted use the word "omnipotent", so the back seat definion you are conveniently using is irrelevant.

---

What's the use in blocking out important, well established concepts for those that are potentially flawed; those that you don't even believe in? Just for argument's sake?

The same thing applies to all the quotes you made. We already been through that. If you actually read the entire paragraph the quotes are in, and took it in context, and read it the way normal people read things, then you would come to the same conclusion as everyone else does. Your problem is that you are reading it out of context, and in a way that people do not actually talk, and you are doing it on purpose.

Yeah people. Admit it. We've been looping through the same old stuff the whole time.

Yeah, he's doing it on purpose and he's just making his argument more and more circular.

I think we're all at fault. I mean, I find it funny! Both parties rebuke the other parties with the same rebuke. The oter party comes back with the same rebuke, and it loops. I I I dont think that this thread is going anywhere, except for stretching each others brains.

That is not exactly true. While he has been repeating the same thing over and over, we have tried atleast a half of dozen ways to explain it our side, and providing information on a many verity of things.

You people raise the question of where dishonesty ends and delusion begins.

Funny, I never recall having brought up such a topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Funny, I never recall having brought up such a topic.

---

Not everything about a person's behavior is intentional or realized by him.

lol guys you have given me plenty of things to lol about lol

Oh you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Oh you.

---

Oh me oh you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Not everything about a person's behavior is intentional or realized by him.

---

And you pretty much prove that fact beyond the shadow of a doubt.

http://crazy-jokes.com/pictures/idiot.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

And you pretty much prove that fact beyond the shadow of a doubt.

http://crazy-jokes.com/pictures/idiot.jpg

---

Hahaha, I actually lol'd at that

Could you be a little less specific?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by God_Almighty

Oh me oh you

---

Oh me oh my

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Could you be a little less specific?

---

to be less specific...
http://journeyamerica.files.wordpres...9/01/idiot.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pcipcC5wN8...00/Oh+Snap.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

to be less specific...
http://journeyamerica.files.wordpres...9/01/idiot.jpg

---

You're losing a debate to an idiot? That's no good.

http://whoyoucallingaskeptic.files.w...ationism-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://whoyoucallingaskeptic.files.w...ationism-1.jpg

---

Lmao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

to be less specific...
http://journeyamerica.files.wordpres...9/01/idiot.jpg

---

Congratulations. Your thread has devolved to mindless name calling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I thought I explained enough; I broke it down. You're saying it is a limitation that something is unlimited?

---

No. I'm saying that unlimited ability is contradictory and impossible to exist. I'm saying that an unlimited being by definition would be able to impose limitations on itself, which creates an impossible paradox. The problem here is with the definition. It creates a hypothetical situation which would be impossible to have in reality. This is a result inherent of the properties of the concept, not of semantic maneuvering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You're saying it is a limitation that something is unable to contradict itself?

---

Yes. The inability to do something. That's what I consider a limitation. Even the lack of the ability to reduce one's ability is a limitation. Unable, lack of ability, limitation. These words should not apply in any event to a being free of inability and limitations. A being "by which all things are possible" would be such an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Is existence "limited" to existence only?

---

I can't make sense of this question. Is existence only itself? I guess so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

This is just word games.

---

It doesn't have to be word games. You could stop trying to exclude certain abilities from the arsenal of an all-powerful being as you do here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

The "limit" is defined as a restriction of ability. Yet to be able to be limited is not actually an ability to begin with, in the context of the unlimited, and that itself, by definition, has no reason to be contradictory. That which is infinite is not limited to itself, it is unlimited itself. "Restriction to restriction" is redundant.

---

Restriction to be able to restrict is not redundant. To be able to be limited is not an ability. That's correct. To be able to limit yourself is an ability. Being limited is having something done to yourself. Limiting something (including yourself) is you doing something. If an ability is something that you can do, limiting yourself is an ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

If something infinite can intrinsically and simultaneously be finite, elaborate, and explain why that should prove that it is only infinite. If this itself, is your argument against it, you're mixing paradigms.

---

It's almost like you're getting my point. Infinite power doesn't make sense. It's illogical. I can't make sense of it to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You're losing a debate to an idiot? That's no good.

http://whoyoucallingaskeptic.files.w...ationism-1.jpg

---

Hang on! I wasn't calling you an idiot, I was saying that you would have to be an idiot to say anything less specific. SOrry about that miscommunication.

Oh yeah, and I think that I pretty much won this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Oh yeah, and I think that I pretty much won this debate.

---

http://az.co.cz/jokes/jokepics/239.jpg