Quote:The Bible specifically limits God in what he can do,

I never disagreed with that. I simply am saying that defies the concept of "all powerful", and the way they make that god work is to keep re defining what God is and what "all powerful" means'.

"all" as a word does not imply limits. It implies unlimited. Otherwise why use the word "all".

I have heard the "within his nature" as the excuse to doge the broken concept.

But if he cannot defy his own nature, there is no reason to call this god unlimited which you just claimed they do set limits on.

"unlimited in his own nature" is just another dodge and back peddle.

And again, of course there definition works because they have already started with "God can do what he wants". As soon as you swallow that crap, you can make any definition you want and when called on it, move the goal posts.

"within his nature" is just another woo way of saying "pulling shit out of my ass to make it suit my own desires"

(January 5, 2013 at 6:08 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

Quote:The Bible specifically limits God in what he can do,

I never disagreed with that. I simply am saying that defies the concept of "all powerful", and the way they make that god work is to keep re defining what God is and what "all powerful" means'.

"all" as a word does not imply limits. It implies unlimited. Otherwise why use the word "all".

I have heard the "within his nature" as the excuse to doge the broken concept.

But if he cannot defy his own nature, there is no reason to call this god unlimited which you just claimed they do set limits on.

"unlimited in his own nature" is just another dodge and back peddle.

And again, of course there definition works because they have already started with "God can do what he wants". As soon as you swallow that crap, you can make any definition you want and when called on it, move the goal posts.

"within his nature" is just another woo way of saying "pulling shit out of my ass to make it suit my own desires"

Remember I don't come from a tradition of Bible only so what you say me be valid for some but I can't comment for them only myself on that.

(January 5, 2013 at 6:25 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 6:08 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I never disagreed with that. I simply am saying that defies the concept of "all powerful", and the way they make that god work is to keep re defining what God is and what "all powerful" means'.

"all" as a word does not imply limits. It implies unlimited. Otherwise why use the word "all".

I have heard the "within his nature" as the excuse to doge the broken concept.

But if he cannot defy his own nature, there is no reason to call this god unlimited which you just claimed they do set limits on.

"unlimited in his own nature" is just another dodge and back peddle.

And again, of course there definition works because they have already started with "God can do what he wants". As soon as you swallow that crap, you can make any definition you want and when called on it, move the goal posts.

"within his nature" is just another woo way of saying "pulling shit out of my ass to make it suit my own desires"

Remember I don't come from a tradition of Bible only so what you say me be valid for some but I can't comment for them only myself on that.

Of course you don't, "I am not like the others" " I am different" " I have a special tin foil hat others don't have". Take a number, that seems to be the new trend in dodging, but you are not the first.

Yet correct me if I am wrong but Jesus is the main super hero in the bible, so please tell me how you disconnect it from the same bible you say others are not getting right?

You magically got it right where all others got it wrong. Never heard that one. *Cough*

(January 5, 2013 at 6:34 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 6:25 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Remember I don't come from a tradition of Bible only so what you say me be valid for some but I can't comment for them only myself on that.

Of course you don't, "I am not like the others" " I am different" " I have a special tin foil hat others don't have". Take a number, that seems to be the new trend in dodging, but you are not the first.

Yet correct me if I am wrong but Jesus is the main super hero in the bible, so please tell me how you disconnect it from the same bible you say others are not getting right?

You magically got it right where all others got it wrong. Never heard that one. *Cough*

The others have not got it wrong we just get a bit to nitpicky at times over the details but if push comes to shove and someone says STAND UP IF YOU BELIEVE JESUS IS " the way and the truth and the life" every christian in every denomination would be standing. Shoot even the apostles had the odd disagreement.

(January 5, 2013 at 6:08 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I never disagreed with that. I simply am saying that defies the concept of "all powerful", and the way they make that god work is to keep re defining what God is and what "all powerful" means'.

It's been redefined by philosophers, not just Christian theologians. The concept of "all powerful" as "completely unlimited power" is as illogical as the concept of a square circle. It leads to the breakdown of logic, as a truly all-powerful being could perform the impossible. There is no point using the concept of "all powerful" in that way, hence why there are multiple uses of the concept.

Quote:"all" as a word does not imply limits. It implies unlimited. Otherwise why use the word "all".

The word "all" itself is not a synonym for "unlimited"; having "all the power" does not mean you have unlimited power.

Quote:I have heard the "within his nature" as the excuse to doge the broken concept.

But if he cannot defy his own nature, there is no reason to call this god unlimited which you just claimed they do set limits on.

"unlimited in his own nature" is just another dodge and back peddle.

I don't think anyone here has ever called God unlimited, nor have any Christians I've come across. You seem to be setting up strawmen now.

Quote:And again, of course there definition works because they have already started with "God can do what he wants". As soon as you swallow that crap, you can make any definition you want and when called on it, move the goal posts.

"within his nature" is just another woo way of saying "pulling shit out of my ass to make it suit my own desires"

I don't see how "God can do what he wants" violates any of what has been said about the nature of omnipotence.

Quote:The concept of "all powerful" as "completely unlimited power" is as illogical as the concept of a square circle. It leads to the breakdown of logic, as a truly all-powerful being could perform the impossible. There is no point using the concept of "all powerful" in that way, hence why there are multiple uses of the concept.

I agree that the concept of a "completely unlimited power" is illogical as the concept of a square circle. Which is why they have to say " a truly all-powerful being could preform the impossible".

Of course, and the reason it works is because they have already swallowed "God can do whatever he wants", which allows them to move the goal posts. Of course we cant nail them on that definition because it is called "making shit up and pulling it out of your ass".

Hence yes, multiple meanings of the concept because when you call them on one, they move to another. It suits their emotional desire for a super hero.

When you were a toddler or young kid, did you ever run into some other kid who made up a game and then when you went by the rules they set up and beat them with the rules they told you, they suddenly said "that's not what I meant".

Thats how the theist game works.

(January 5, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Strangely when I was in school and the history books were using this as a way of suggesting Medieval Scholars were stupid I actually thought the writers of the history books we wrong because I understood that they may have been talking about concepts that were very subtle as the difference between spiritual/physical , power seperated from mass, finite and infinite using the angle needle metaphor so I didn't swallow the Dark ages was just a time of idiots even as per usual the media of the time focused on the same areas as it does now.

(Firstly as a side issue, and just to get it out the way. The 'Dark Ages' is a nineteenth century concept often used to justify the class structures of British and European aristocracy, the phrase is not now used in academic circles.)

I would agree with you, mediaeval people were not stupid, More in the 150,000 years modern man has been about there is no evidence there has been any change in the ability to think.

So angels and needles.
To understand these debates, it is worth looking at the historical background.
Mediaeval Europe was based on a rigid structure, both of class position, and of knowledge. However as they were developing it became useful to re-erect the academies similar to the ancient Greek models, to pass on knowledge. The problem with these new universities was that they were filled with minds encouraged to problem solve.
So these academic minds are pre-disposed to look for anomalies, and expose them. This put the Universities at odds with the church which needed to protect its rigid structure.
This creates a problem, society is based on a rigid structure, to question that structure could destroy society, on the other hand disperse the universities, and any chance of development or even maintaining the current structure of society is lost.
The answer is the angels on needles debates. it occupies the minds of the advanced academics, and yet does not challenge the order of society.
Your school books may not have explained why these debates were a waste of time, but that is precisely what they were designed to be.
And it seems just what they remain, don't think about central questions, which produce answers that do not fit the dogma, just fret about the lifting of rocks.

Lifting a rock so large that you can't hold it.... raises the question of where do you stand? Lift it from where?

(January 5, 2013 at 7:13 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 6:08 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I never disagreed with that. I simply am saying that defies the concept of "all powerful", and the way they make that god work is to keep re defining what God is and what "all powerful" means'.

It's been redefined by philosophers, not just Christian theologians. The concept of "all powerful" as "completely unlimited power" is as illogical as the concept of a square circle. It leads to the breakdown of logic, as a truly all-powerful being could perform the impossible. There is no point using the concept of "all powerful" in that way, hence why there are multiple uses of the concept.

Quote:"all" as a word does not imply limits. It implies unlimited. Otherwise why use the word "all".

The word "all" itself is not a synonym for "unlimited"; having "all the power" does not mean you have unlimited power.

Quote:I have heard the "within his nature" as the excuse to doge the broken concept.

But if he cannot defy his own nature, there is no reason to call this god unlimited which you just claimed they do set limits on.

"unlimited in his own nature" is just another dodge and back peddle.

I don't think anyone here has ever called God unlimited, nor have any Christians I've come across. You seem to be setting up strawmen now.

Quote:And again, of course there definition works because they have already started with "God can do what he wants". As soon as you swallow that crap, you can make any definition you want and when called on it, move the goal posts.

"within his nature" is just another woo way of saying "pulling shit out of my ass to make it suit my own desires"

I don't see how "God can do what he wants" violates any of what has been said about the nature of omnipotence.

Quote:I don't see how "God can do what he wants" violates any of what has been said about the nature of omnipotence.

It doesn't violate "omnipotence" from their point of view, that's why it works so well to the theist, they can play a perpetual game of dodge ball with it.

Reality on the other hand isn't our personal wishes and we are not entitled to our own facts.

If your Cod cannot lift the rock, it is inferior to Archimedes, a leaver and a fulcrum.
Science is always better than sky daddies.