Is that before or after he cursed a figtree?

(June 16, 2011 at 5:33 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Is that before or after he cursed a figtree?

Fucking figtrees

(June 16, 2011 at 5:30 am)colubridae Wrote:

---

For what it’s worth. I meant no offence by any of this. And I have noted that other threads demonstrate game playing – with no condemnation.

Please understand that I am an atheist of the worst kind. I despise organised religion for the evil that it has done and continues to do. As far as I’m concerned no theist or deist is completely free of this taint. Christians and muslims especially have their hands soaked in the blood split by the kingdom of heaven, right up to their armpits.

That having been said, I consider myself to be intellectually honest. I’m sure you will disagree.

To the business at hand. You are as aware as I am that the word ‘omnipotence’ means what it says. Whatever word games you play, you cannot circumvent the ‘infinite’ connotation.

Whatever power you attribute to your god I can conjure up a god with greater power, unless, of course, your god has infinite power. Which leaves you with the same problem. Infinite is infinite.

The point of all this is that my evidence supports the ‘theory’ of an omnipotent god. Unfortunately I’m not inclined to simply reveal it. Lame as it may be, it’s still a tiny nugget of gold. And I certainly consider ‘demands’ that I give my evidence to be impertinent to the level of plain rudeness.

JC himself espoused patience and humility (according to which page of the big book of multiple choice you are turned to.).

---

The problem with your question is this. If god can't make a cake that he can't eat, then he isn't omnipotent. If he can make a cake he can't eat, then he can't eat it, and he isn't omnipotent. Trying to answer the question results in a paradox.

@colubridae

I understand you dispise Religion, but bear in mind that same hatred is biasing your thoughts, like a religious person is biased on religious thoughts. Now, we all are a bit biased towards our ideas, its fine, that's why we discuss things, but when you use a logical fallacy to get your point across you are doing the same thing most of us complain about fundamentalists (e.g. Something can't come from nothing... except god, etc). If you truly want to remain honest in your position, you must avoid this argument, its silly anyway... you are discussing amnipotence, something never observed, and god, something also yet to be observed

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to throw you under the bus, I also used that argument before, but I learned about its fallacies (it isn't very obvious anyway), so granted, I avoid using that. You may get alot of theists reeling when you invoke it, but the more advanced theists around (like Ryft, fr0d0 and in this case Tack) will just tear it apart. And for me, education its more important than religion. If all the theists averaged in brains like Tack, Ryft or even fr0ds, I believe there wouldn't be a problem in the world derived from religion.

Somehow I don’t think I’m getting my point across.

I’ll try again.

1 One of the accusations thrown against Christianity (in particular) is the claim of an omnipotent god. Such an omnipotent god is a paradox. I am well aware of this paradox. As are Christians.
I am not claiming that it doesn’t exist.

2 ‘Thinking’ Christians have developed blathering circumlocutions in order to avoid this paradox, whilst still claiming an omnipotent god. I do claim that these attempts are pure hogwash.

3 I have physical evidence (actually, evidence that is available to more or less everyone) which will (to my intense chagrin) support Christians in circumventing the problem of their omnipotent god.

LastPoet Wrote:but when you use a logical fallacy to get your point across you are doing the same thing most of us complain about fundamentalists

I am not ‘using’ that argument at all. My evidence undermines the accusation of paradox. A paradox which despite much bluster they cannot avoid, any more than they can avoid the epicurean dilemma despite equal avalanches of bluster.

In an extremely annoying way my honesty is ‘forcing’ me to be neutral, and point out evidence which supports the Christian view.

I’m not sure that makes sense. I hope so.

Omnipotent isn't found in the Bible, I wouldn't claim that as an attribute of God. You are claiming it is. The Bible lists specific things actually that God can't do. So by your definition and using your word, he's not omnipotent. He is however many other things. The common vernacular and understanding amongst Christians rather than listing all of his attributes has compressed simplified it to the omnimax principle, for brevity alone. Unfortunately they lost a lot of accuracy in the process as well. An all power or almight being or entity will always accomplish what he set out to do. I can not see the reason for such a being to try and accomplish failure, as it's a contradiction, but I can't see anything prohibiting it.

I entertain your question only because it's a question. You've obviously shown yourself to be very bigoted against Christianity, while at the same time condemning me for being impatient. I'm very patient, however I value my time and if you continue in that vein it's not worth the time to continue using it on you.

tackattack Wrote:I entertain your question only because it's a question. You've obviously shown yourself to be very bigoted against Christianity, while at the same time condemning me for being impatient. I'm very patient, however I value my time and if you continue in that vein it's not worth the time to continue using it on you.

I apologise for calling you impatient. That was aimed at other people on the thread. Although the thread title was aimed at you, others joined in, who were definitely impatient and rude. You weren’t. If my accusation seemed to be aimed at you I offer my humble apology.

I reject the label of bigot. I despise religion including Christianity for perfectly valid reasons. In the same way that I despise Stalinism. (neatly avoiding godwin’s law).

You think I have prejudged you because you are a xtian. OK. I believe (as per R Dawkins) that teaching young children is plainly and simply child abuse. Would you, for example, consent to banning Christian teaching until age 18, or at least after sex ed. If you agree to this I will revise my ‘bigotted’ opinion of you.

tackattack Wrote:Omnipotent isn't found in the Bible, I wouldn't claim that as an attribute of God. You are claiming it is. The Bible lists specific things actually that God can't do. So by your definition and using your word, he's not omnipotent. He is however many other things. The common vernacular and understanding amongst Christians rather than listing all of his attributes has compressed simplified it to the omnimax principle, for brevity alone. Unfortunately they lost a lot of accuracy in the process as well. An all power or almight being or entity will always accomplish what he set out to do. I cannot see the reason for such a being to try and accomplish failure, as it's a contradiction, but I can't see anything prohibiting it.

I am fairly sure I never said that ‘omnipotent’ was in the bible. I did claim that very many attribute ‘omnipotence’ to their god. I also claim ‘almighty’ and ‘omnipotent’ are virtually interchangeable. And ‘almighty’ is in the bible. I stand by these claims.

As to the big book of multiple choice claiming there are things that god can’t do, I refer you to the following:-






I strongly recommend not using the babble to back up your assertions.
None of which is getting any closer to the juicy carrot of evidence

tackattack Wrote:The common vernacular and understanding amongst Christians rather than listing all of his attributes has compressed simplified it to the omnimax principle, for brevity alone. Unfortunately they lost a lot of accuracy in the process as well. An all power or almight being or entity will always accomplish what he set out to do.

This is a classic example of the kind of blather that I’m trying to help you avoid.
'Omnimax'

with best regards Lucifer.

Quote:Somehow I don’t think I’m getting my point across.

I have evidence of something.
Show it to you? haha, don't be silly.
I have evidence.
I have evidence.
I know something you don't know, nyeh nyeh!



It's something like this, right?

(June 16, 2011 at 8:41 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:

Quote:Somehow I don’t think I’m getting my point across.

I have evidence of something.
Show it to you? haha, don't be silly.
I have evidence.
I have evidence.
I know something you don't know, nyeh nyeh!



It's something like this, right?

Are you interested or not?

---

(June 16, 2011 at 5:33 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Is that before or after he cursed a figtree?

Did you post on RDF?

Quote:Are you interested or not?

You've already made it perfectly clear that you have no intention of producing your claimed evidence, so my interest or otherwise is irrelevant.