Login

Violet · (This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 1:00 am by Violet.)

Hold on hold on... do you really want to get the only capable bullshitter on this forum to present how logic is self-defeating and also a way in which square circles already exist as do cylindrical pyrimids and liquid gas-solids?

Unless you really want to fuck with shit like this, you'll abandon the illogical notion presented in absolutist omnipotence. If you really wish to argue the point, then by all means I shall leave you completely senseless whilst being absolutely and inarguably correct.

It sounds like fun to me, so be careful Smile

(January 6, 2013 at 11:12 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Can he make himself not exist?

Yes.

And then he can make himself exist again.

Or he can exist and not at once. He's sexiest when inbetween.

(January 6, 2013 at 11:40 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Nothing vs Something.
Thats a classical metaphysic.
Are we gonna tweek it a bit like Mr Woo Krauss?

Nothing is something. Something might be nothing.

No, it's an amusing laugh at how completely retarded most "philosophers" are.

No, we are not. You may if you wish. But I will have no part in that.

**Ryantology** · (This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 2:27 am by Ryantology.)

(January 6, 2013 at 11:30 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Well, the only reason I ask is because the metaphysical consequences of God doing that might mean that you also cease to exist and therefore you wouldnt be there to notice the nothingness in His and your absence.

The universe has gotten along just fine for almost 14 billion years without God existing.

jonb · January 7, 2013 at 7:41 am

The rock god can't lift.

Well Ozzy is getting on now, and his back is not what it used to be.

Brian37 · January 7, 2013 at 8:30 am

(January 7, 2013 at 7:41 am)jonb Wrote: The rock god can't lift.

Well Ozzy is getting on now, and his back is not what it used to be.

Come on now everyone knows James Hetfield is god.

Dee Dee Ramone · January 7, 2013 at 9:10 am

(January 7, 2013 at 8:30 am)Brian37 Wrote:
(January 7, 2013 at 7:41 am)jonb Wrote: The rock god can't lift.

Well Ozzy is getting on now, and his back is not what it used to be.

Come on now everyone knows James Hetfield is god.

Maybe in 1988, but he sounds more like satan now.

Fidel_Castronaut · (This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 11:37 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)

(January 5, 2013 at 3:44 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:
(January 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I think what Epicurus deduced about God by exploring his role in evil is relevant here since it relates to matters of omnipotence, etc.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

well maybe freewill came with a package, and as God created a universe that works best when it is in harmony with his ultimate Good, it came to the present state by the first creature that choose to follow a will other than Gods as to do evil is to choose against Gods will.

This makes no sense.

It's impossible to get around the illogicality of creating a universe meant to be good with the overwhelming capacity to do whatever it wants (which is apparently bad).

Also, I feel ashmed for saying "the universe can be bad" when what I meant to say is "a particular life form assigns a judgement to some behaviour using subjective values garnered from the point in time and location in which it resides".

(January 5, 2013 at 3:44 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: The havoc that was caused was not due to God's will but rather the fallen angels,

I stopped reading here.

(January 5, 2013 at 3:44 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

our ancestors and their choices and our choices, the reason he allows evil is to allow freewill but as God knows the final outcome He has deemed the finate suffering as worth whatever GOD has seen to be the final but infinate Good end. He couldn't just change the universes rules to fit folk that didn't align with his will but that would have meant changing himself as well and as he Is perfect to change would have been wrong. So when the consequences of Evil has been worked through to completion he will make a new fresh and Perfect universe free from those who are a malign influence in that perfect universe.

Cato · January 7, 2013 at 12:33 pm

(January 7, 2013 at 8:30 am)Brian37 Wrote: Come on now everyone knows James Hetfield is god.

Fitting. A little mood music perhaps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VUgHJUBJ70

**Tiberius** · January 7, 2013 at 2:41 pm

(January 6, 2013 at 6:55 pm)Ryantology Wrote: By definition, omnipotence has to be absolute, doesn't it?

It beggars belief that you can even state that. I mean, did you even look up the definition before stating it? Clearly not:

1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent

Hell, I even linked to the Wikipedia article earlier, which clearly states the multiple definitions that are used in philosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Meanings

Quote:If God is forced to conform to logical rules, who made those rules, and what force compels even God to act within them?

Logical rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. They define reality, they don't create it.

Quote:Perhaps the simplest and most vital reason to believe in God is that there is no higher, more powerful, being to worship. The problem is, if God is subject to any limits he cannot overcome, including the limit of 'logically possible', then he cannot be the most powerful thing in existence. Logic must be more powerful than God. And, we are left to wonder where logic comes from? Is God subject to the same dumb natural forces a secularist already believes are responsible for the universe, or is there a being even higher than God?

In either case, there's no justification for worshiping Yahweh. Either he doesn't exist, or he's merely the next step up from us in a virtually infinite hierarchy (all of which themselves would suffer from the infinite regress argument; why worship any of them, either?).

This isn't about whether God exists or not. This was merely about whether the concept of omnipotence is valid. Absolute omnipotence isn't; other forms of omnipotence are.

**Minimalist** · January 7, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Quote:Absolute omnipotence isn't;

Then why call it "omnipotence?"

**Mister Agenda** · January 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm

(January 5, 2013 at 5:04 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:
(January 5, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: Yeah, God is kinda douchey about people who reject him.

Well if you mean in the description of HELL. Well the primary element that makes hell and the greatest distress is defined by the awareness that the person has permanently seperated themselves from GOD everything else in the description of hell is just a means of giving us some human concept of how terrible this is which is hard as we can't even comprehend the full Pleasure associated with being in the presence of GOD in heaven.Its not God but the person that does this, some would say this choice is made after death but that saying no to God becomes a learned pattern in the soul just as patterns are laid down in the brain with practice and although God will forgive even at the latest of points he can only do this if the person will ask with their free will but the deeper the groove in the soul the harder that person finds to ask.

So God is not omnipresent?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	What is the difference between me and a rock?	Omni314	19	7125	June 17, 2012 at 5:49 am Last Post: Tempus