The logical consequences of omnipotence

[Esquilax]

That's an admirable outlook you have there, PhillipD. Unfortunately... it's the internet. You're battling upstream from the beginning.

For my part, I thought I defined the terms I wished to use pretty well in my original post, if not again in my latest. Omnipotence- really the only term I figured was important- has a very broad definition because it's a very broad term, but also because all of the Christians I've discussed it with don't want to put upper or lower limits on it, possibly for fear of being penned in by them.

I guess if I had to single sentence this bitch, it'd go like this: if god can do anything, then isn't the idea that god can't do something for fear of interfering with free will sort of a contradiction just on the face of it?

[Mystical]

Philip, I like your overview of the thread, it's basically what I concluded but I'm not all that great at overviews. I was simply trying to move on, and get the question answered as I truly was excited to see if any good responses would come of it, then disappointed to find the conclusion as less than preferable. Then to get yet another diluted non-answer from Frodo just, well, you see. I was trying to start a new page cutting back to the heart of the matter, and getting referred back to the assertions I clearly was not happy with was the last thing I was looking for. Not to mention, he's degrading. Regularly. If I perceived him as degrading, it's merely for being programmed to that sort of response from him. Fr0d0: Sorry if you weren't trying to be degrading this time and I perceived you as such!

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.

I'm not good at forgetting what has been said in the past, for each new thread. Perhaps I should work on that Were you referring to this thread in particular? Because I can't see how I was being protective in this particular one (you caught me though! I was blatantly and fiercely in another!). In this thread, I was merely attempting to re-direct the conversation back on topic of answering the question--then yes, I did get sidetracked yet again by the king of sidetracks. But, you're heard loud and clear, I shall attempt not to take personal, what is said. I admit I do have a weakness in that.. I just want straight answers damnit!
I do get annoyed easily when answers are not answered by purposeful contention or diversion, or plain out lack of manners to the cause of answering the questions rather than squabbling over non-related or non-pertinent information--regarding a subject that I truly care about hearing a resolute conclusion to.
In essence, it's been like sitting in the playground with a bunch of kids and when they try to have a serious conversation and one kid is in the corner loud as can be saying,"I know why you're wrong but I'm not going to tell you why you need to figure that out and if you can't you're stupid!" Then everyone starts bickering and nothing gets done. Frustrating to no end..

Oh! And, Welcome Being a new member myself, I haven't been able to say that to anyone yet

[fr0d0]

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.

Criticisms noted and appreciated. I would certainly hold my hand up to being a poor communicator. And to being too readily drawn into conflict. Although I've restrained myself considerably if you've seen my behavior here in the past. Nothing to be proud of but I'm human.

I don't see God's omnipotence limited at all. What is seen as God unable to do something is God's overall plan to do something that in the minutiae will be very confusing to you.

As we don't have the option of omniscience, this cannot be known to us.

God is never malevolent to us. But God's benevolence doesn't involve preventing us from harm of every kind. God's benevolent plan for us is primarily that we enjoy life to the full. A life without the potential for extremes would never attain that.
Natural disaster is the mechanism by which life on earth exists. Assuming God, his greater plan is facilitated by the laws of physics. By life and death, by happiness and suffering.
Omnibenevolence isn't a characteristic of the Christian God. God is love. Love is Gods moving force. That's how we define him. Mistranslating biblical text to show the opposite it nonsensical. Why would the Jews hold that God was loving with reference to their own record that says the opposite. Someone is reading it wrong there, and I would suggest to you that it isn't them.

We have a great formal debate thread in the debate area stitching up the logical errors that challenge omnipotence that I'd encourage you to check out between Rift and Saerules. Apologies I can't link you add I'm on my phone. Take care.

[Esquilax]

I don't see God's omnipotence limited at all. What is seen as God unable to do something is God's overall plan to do something that in the minutiae will be very confusing to you.

As we don't have the option of omniscience, this cannot be known to us.

Okay, thank you, that's a straight answer. To be honest, the idea of an inerrant plan troubles me, but at least it does answer the question I asked. It's troublesome because I can't envision an end god could be working for that could possibly justify the immensity of the human suffering that he allows, but I guess that plays into the limited human perspective. It feels hollow to me, but I don't want to turn around and be mean and start an argument again.

And I'll definitely check out that debate thread, thanks for cluing me in.

[justin]

This reminds me of matt dilahunty when he make the arguement that god sends people to hell. I laughed my ass off at that lady! Gotta love it

[Ryantology]

God is never malevolent to us.

You should read the Old Testament some day.

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

God is love.

[fr0d0]

God is love.

He sure is. He is just too. A judge that is qualified to judge. Are you omniscient and able to correct God there? What is the point of what is depicted? How does it fit in to the whole picture? How can you judge that God is evil from that? > you can't.

[Mystical]

God is love.

He sure is. He is just too. A judge that is qualified to judge. Are you omniscient and able to correct God there? What is the point of what is depicted? How does it fit in to the whole picture? How can you judge that God is evil from that? > you can't.

This is where I get all confused. How can you think god is just, if he sends people to hell? Before you answer that with we send ourselves to hell--I'm not sending myself to hell, he would be doing the sending. If I did get sent to hell, it'd be for something as trivial as lying or jealousy, as I am a good person without god. How can you say that god is qualified to judge if he is subject to his own faults of, say, jealousy--then sends me to hell for the same thing? The injustice of my treatment by him would still be there, even if he pulled me out of hell at some point (show me in the bible where it says that!).

[Zone]

Hell is a separation from God these days. But in any case you won't see anything written in the Bible about non-Christians going to hell.

[fr0d0]

Responded to the double post in the free will thread