The logical consequences of omnipotence

[Captain Scarlet]

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!).

Hell is an embarrassment for modern day xtians, which is why it is now re-tuned, re-rationalized, re-interpreted to god separation from fiery, spiky, shit theme park. If your an xtian it is viewed as part of the joy and wonder of the greater understanding of the revelation of god through time. To non xtians it appears this shit is made up on the fly to mirror the zeitgeist or valid criticisms of the theology. Whatever your perspective the orthodox theology on this suggests that god is just ie will punish you for sin and has the right to judge, but offers mercy through the Jesus. The atheist perspective is that, this is incoherent because god could have materialized a world where beings freely choose to believe and not sin (see J L Mackie and Ray Bradley on this). There is no knock out blow for theism or atheism here it's just a running battle where both sides see there propositions as far more reasonable than the other side.

[Ryantology]

It's not an embarrassment for all Christians, there are plenty of them who derive joy from pain and slaughter and call it good and righteous. There are Christians who rejoice at the image of God as an omnipresent Hitler, favoring those who praise him and meting out torture and mass murder to those who do not, as fr0d0's example above shows.

There are two types of Christians: the fairweather type who cling to Jesus on the mistaken assumption that he was a nice person who just wants us to be nice people (thus proving that they have never so much as sniffed a Bible in their lives), and cowardly, selfish psychopaths who understand that God is a monstrous dictator whose cruelty and unfairness is justified by his alleged all-powerful nature, and wish to sycophantically ally themselves with this monster in the interest of self-preservation.

[ManMachine]

Sorry is this specific version of this question has already been asked here, I did search but couldn't find it, and I want to know: Theists, is your god omnipotent and infinite? Is there something he cannot do?

If he is indeed omnipotent, why does he allow suffering?

Before you answer that last one, I should tell you that I'm aware of the standard brands of apologetics: god doesn't want to interfere in free will, suffering must exist to give contrast to pleasure, etc, and that's why god allows murders and such.

Only all of that is wrong: an omnipotent god is capable of envisioning a method by which he can intervene in the world to stop suffering without interfering with free will, and has the power to employ such a strategy. An omnipotent god can envision ways to do absolutely anything regardless of whatever justification for inaction anyone can come up with, by definition.

So, what's the answer? Is god capable yet inactive, either through disinterest or malice? Or is he limited, thereby making any religious text that claims his omnipotence to be flawed?

Omnipotrence as a concept is a fallacy. This can be exposed with a simple question.

Can an omnipotent being creatre a stone it cannot lift?

If it can then it is not omnipotent because it cannot lift the stone, if it cannot then it is not omnipotent because it cannot create the stone.

For some interesting philosophy on omnipotence and the nature of god in general I can highly recommend the 12th Century Spanish Philosopher Averroes.

MM

[pocaracas]

Omnipotrence as a concept is a fallacy. This can be exposed with a simple question.

Can an omnipotent being creatre a stone it cannot lift?

If it can then it is not omnipotent because it cannot lift the stone, if it cannot then it is not omnipotent because it cannot create the stone.

For some interesting philosophy on omnipotence and the nature of god in general I can highly recommend the 12th Century Spanish Philosopher Averroes.

MM

That has been covered and they can always claim that god can only do anything that is logical.
It can't make a square circle, for example, just like it wouldn't make such a stone. It's illogical, hence it's out of the realm of possible things an all-powerful god would do.

[fr0d0]

Omnipotrence as a concept is a fallacy. This can be exposed with a simple question.

Can an omnipotent being creatre a stone it cannot lift?

If it can then it is not omnipotent because it cannot lift the stone, if it cannot then it is not omnipotent because it cannot create the stone.

Go check it:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-1813.html

---

There is no knock out blow for theism or atheism here it's just a running battle where both sides see there propositions as far more reasonable than the other side.

Nonsense. The clear evidence supports the benefits of a positive world view. Read through this thread where we've covered that throughly.

---

It's not an embarrassment for all Christians, there are plenty of them who derive joy from pain and slaughter and call it good and righteous. There are Christians who rejoice at the image of God as an omnipresent Hitler, favoring those who praise him and meting out torture and mass murder to those who do not, as fr0d0's example above shows.

Utter tosh caused by wilfull blindness, I presume.

[Esquilax]

Nonsense. The clear evidence supports the benefits of a positive world view. Read through this thread where we've covered that throughly.

Are we claiming that a positive worldview is exclusively theistic, now???

[ManMachine]

That has been covered and they can always claim that god can only do anything that is logical.
It can't make a square circle, for example, just like it wouldn't make such a stone. It's illogical, hence it's out of the realm of possible things an all-powerful god would do.

Ah, logic, the foundation of religion. Silly me.

[pocaracas]

That has been covered and they can always claim that god can only do anything that is logical.
It can't make a square circle, for example, just like it wouldn't make such a stone. It's illogical, hence it's out of the realm of possible things an all-powerful god would do.

Ah, logic, the foundation of religion. Silly me.

No... the foundation of religion is death, most likely.
Logic is just a way to get from A to B without making a mistake.
If A is true, then B will very likely also be true.
If A is false, then B will very likely be false.
Either way, logic applies.

[fr0d0]

Are we claiming that a positive worldview is exclusively theistic, now???

No. But theism supports greater potential positivity.

[Ryantology]

Utter tosh caused by wilfull blindness, I presume.

Says the selfish, cowardly sycophant.

No. But theism supports greater potential positivity.

In no way can this be true. Much about the theistic worldview is openly exclusionary, hateful and murderous. The humanist worldview, at the very worst, is strictly neutral in theory, and tends strongly to be positive and progressive in practice.

There is no comparison between a worldview which gleefully sentences the majority of humans to nigh-infinite torture in hell for arbitrary reasons and a humanist worldview which desires the advancement and enlightenment of the entire human race, regardless of what they believe.

The agents of theism are lying frauds.