The logical consequences of omnipotence

[fr0d0]

Because if I read the thread, I'd know the arguments.
Did I read the thread?
Yes.
Did you ask if I read the thread?
No.
Did you tell me that if I read the thread my question would
be answered?
Yes you did.

At the very least you were being assumptive, like usual.

With no information all anyone can do is assume. I answered as accurately as I could with the information given. I did nothing wrong there, unless you can show me how.

Your bias seems to be strong. You're taking offense before I get chance to offend you. Theists are supposed to be the ones lead by fear.

Obviously you don't want the argument from the Christian perspective. You'd like an explanation of the opposing position. You should have made that clear.

---

So just a recap: ummmmmmmmm...

Is god or is he not, Omnipotent?

Seriously.

It's like pullin teeth.

This is aimed at atheists.

Atheists... Please explain how God is omnipotent or not.

missluckie26 thinks getting any sense out of you is like pulling teeth.

[Mystical]

Wowwwuhhhh. wow. wow. I mean, wow.

Forgive me for not replying to you, I'm still trying to figure out how I'm biased and in fear of you answering a general question because you're a believer.

[fr0d0]

Forgive me for not replying to you, I'm still trying to figure out how I'm biased and in fear of you answering a general question because you're a believer.

You just have to figure out how I was "degrading" to you. Once again, please explain.

And here's a new question: where did I say that you should fear me because I'm a believer?!

[Mystical]

I didn't say you were degrading me, I said you were being degrading like usual. If you want me to reference back to all your derogatory statements from past threads (just from the time I've joined!) I'd be happy to.
I already explained how you were being degrading by degrading the value of my question, please refer to my earlier post.

Frodo:
Theists are supposed to be the ones lead by fear.
Obviously you don't want the argument from the Christian perspective.

Seriously, it's like pullin teeth to talk to you.
I'm done, this still has nothing absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.

In case you didn't notice, I can't have a pissing contest with you--I don't have a penis.

[Ryantology]

Atheists... Please explain how God is omnipotent or not.

Fictional characters can have any attributes the authors can imagine.

As the prospect of God being real is virtually zero, asking this as if it had real-life implications is meaningless. He is, of course, totally welcome to come down here and contradict me.

[fr0d0]

I didn't say you were degrading me, I said you were being degrading like usual.

To be "degrading like usual", I would have to actually be degrading in that response to you.
Your bias is what saw it as degrading. I was quoting fact as I see it. We're talking logic here, not belief. So there is a collective answer both sides can agree upon.

---

If you want me to reference back to all your derogatory statements from past threads

We're not talking about past comments here. Don't change the subject.

[Mystical]

Atheists... Please explain how God is omnipotent or not.

Fictional characters can have any attributes the authors can imagine.

As the prospect of God being real is virtually zero, asking this as if it had real-life implications is meaningless. He is, of course, totally welcome to come down here and contradict me.

Thanks for the reply
Sure that's what we believe, but all the same I'm looking to view it from a logistic standpoint as to ascertain if there are contradictions in the logic of the premise other than ones I already have developed.

[fr0d0]

this still has nothing absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.

Yes. I rephrased that for you. See above.

---

In case you didn't notice, I can't have a pissing contest with you--I don't have a penis.

I assumed you were female. But one should never jump to assumptions right? Should I take it easy on you then?

[Esquilax]

This is aimed at atheists.

Atheists... Please explain how God is omnipotent or not.

missluckie26 thinks getting any sense out of you is like pulling teeth.

My contention in making this thread is that it doesn't matter in a binary sense, but that if god is omnipotent, then by necessity all the apologetics theists use to excuse the immorality of god's actions are nullified; an omnipotent god is by definition either disinterested in us, or actively malevolent against us, if he doesn't act to disable all suffering. And that if he's not omnipotent, then there's a lot of false advertising going on.

Certainly the latter argument is less strong, but it does have the advantage of forcing the theist who answers to define their religious figure more strongly than they usually would. Religion thrives on vagueness, which you can see in many of the answers one gets to these types of questions; questioning, the expanding knowledge pool that we have, causes religious positions to retreat. Christianity operates on the back foot. The whole concept is a softer version of the god of the gaps; it exists in faith, but the more we know, the less there is to have faith in.

[PhilipD]

I feel so strongly about the conduct in this thread that, having read all twenty-six pages I felt obliged to register on the forums.

I'd like to make a few things clear from my perspective, and they may seem somewhat rambling-based as a lot of the content here is genuinely so misguided and written extremely confusingly.

Also, sorry if anybody feels offended by any statements I am about to make.

Firstly, the basic etiquette behind answering a question is to answer the question. If your answer was not understood, you re-phrase your response, taking into account any potential information you can provide to ease the experience and answer again. If that does not work, you repeat the last step again. You repeat this until A) the person understands your answer B) you run out of time/effort/willpower/sanity to continue repeating the step. At which point, you move onto the next question or leave.

At no point should you stop answering the question and begin rolling your eyes or putting your face in your palm. This applies to most if not all parties here, but I really feel I need to cite Frodo's continuous choice to repeat almost verbatim what he has already stated, as if this will somehow make it magically be understood. If you want a person to understand what you're saying, you'd help them. So, to be frank, it seems as though you're not trying to help someone understand through conveying your point and instead are just enjoying the sight of your own typing or even worse, you're (and I hate to use the word so openly) trolling.

A brief interlude is provided at the end of this rant (*) scroll down if you so wish.

Secondly, and almost unrelated, I'd like to urge missluckie26 not to get too personally involved with this conversation, as I feel as though you may be swaying toward 'protecting' your fiance as it were.

Thirdly, the concept of 'back-patting' or other coined terms in which you all sit around complementing people who share the same thoughts as you is not conducive to progressing a debate. This applies a lot to the earlier conversation in which the only way some users could express their despair (as it were) is through saying that you've all made great points that Frodo could clearly not understand.

Fourthly, and this really got to me at points through the thread, adding some 'respite' from the heat of discussion by trivialising one's own point jokingly is counter-productive to any conversation. If you feel you said something silly, acknowledge it and move on!

Finally, something you all really need to get onto the same level with is, is the intended definition of a word. An argument can not be made if one is unsure of the poster's intent when saying a broadly usable word. Frodo, I feel as though your point could be made significantly clearer if you'd actually stopped trying to respond to everything being thrown at you and tried to just explain your definitions accurately.

Also as a side-note, I know it comes with the territory but please don't resort to insulting each other. I'm kind-of sad that we don't see some slight moderation on the insulting front as it has almost utterly derailed many parts of this topic.

Yes, I haven't provided my own view on this topic at this point, but I feel that there is just far too much to get my head around in one sitting and much of it is 'padding' and not really to do with the topic at all. I really think it would be great for the entire direction of the thread if the OP came back, re-stated the question with particular definitions and assumptions regarding beliefs made clear and then a reasoned and friendly response with only good intentions is returned. I hope I haven't come across badly in this post and also hope to see a complete and interesting outcome to this debate.

* I was raised in a home void of any discussion on and thought of religion. I was part of your average UK primary school which had heavy religious saturation which was separated from class and consisted only of 'assemblies' and the annual nativity. All in all, despite having a religious passage read once a week, I was fairly oblivious to all religion. This has lasted right up until my early college days where I found myself interacting with and spending a lot of time with Christians. I'd also like to assert that my view of Christians is not represented by a bunch of teenagers who feel their only identity is through religion but of a well-rounded demographic from much research. By being almost entirely void of religion I find it almost humorous that religion is treated as exempt from the scrutiny we'd apply to otherwise outrageously baseless claims. There is as much evidence of any deity as there is of the elusive bigfoot. While I'm an advocate of freedom of speech, among other freedom-based rights I feel that in order for religion to no longer be a threat to the development of humanity on a whole; there must be a complete separation of church and state. Also, to clarify, 'state' is defined as anything and everything funded for by the taxpayer and the multicultural people of the UK. I hope this might give you an idea of what I feel regarding religion.