RE: Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion
December 14, 2024 at 7:34 am
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2024 at 7:41 am by Sheldon.)
(December 13, 2024 at 10:13 pm)Angrboda Wrote:Except I am not trying to have it both ways, as I am not making claims that any kind of omniscience or omnipotence is possible, I am just pointing out contradictions in certain ideas like omniscience and omnipotence that I have seen apologists present, nor did I invent the principles of logic, the efficacy of which is well supported. If the beliefs of others are irrational, that is for them to address, or not. FWIW the only beliefs that logic don't apply to, are irrational ones, by definition.(December 13, 2024 at 7:51 pm)Sheldon Wrote: It sounds to me like you're straw manning me, read my original post for proper context. Tell you what I'll save you the time, here it is:
I've emboldened the part where I very specifically made the point you are now suggesting I did not.
I understand your point, but I'm pointing out that you can't have it both ways. If omnipotence means no limits, then you cannot then argue that such an omnipotence is limited by the law of noncontradiction.
Quote:You have to pick a lane. That's fine if you want to grouse that theists shouldn't be allowed to define their god in a way that you find inconvenient, but that isn't a logical objection.Nor is it remotely what I am doing, is this not a debate forum, am I not aloud to examine ideas and claims? That certain ideas I have seen apologists present, violate principles of logic, is absolutely a logical objection to those ideas.
Quote:Moreover, anyone with even passing familiarity with the god of the bible knows that the idea that god has limits isn't something that apologists just conveniently pulled out of their ass, it's very plain from the biblical text that God has limits, such as his inability to lie.Great, care to show a single post of mine remotely stating or implying otherwise? You seem to have presented a straw man.
Quote:If you have a problem with that, tough. And no, I haven't strawmanned you.Yes you have, here again, plainly. I can only suggest you read my original post, and go through this exchange, it's not that long, and explain where you think I said the bible doesn't suggest the deity depicted has limits to its power? I even quoted my original post, and very specifically emboldened my qualification of this view as held by "some apologists". Though apart from this being another straw man, the bible also has passages that make claim the deity's power has no limits of course, shall I sententiously suggest anyone with a "passing familiarity of the bible should know this" as you just did to me?
Quote: I've pointed out facts that you find inconvenient about your position.You have not honestly represented any position I hold, and none of the claims you've made are inconvenient to any point I have made, you entirely ignored the context of my original post despite me requoting it and emboldening the part you've misrepresented. Try this. without going back roughly type what you think my original point was...in the context of the post I was responding to.
That there are different views among theists an aphorists one what they believe omniscience and omnipotence to mean has never remotely been disputed by me, nor have I once remotely suggested the view I assigned to some apologists I have encountered, was a mainstream view. my main original point was about a claim a theist made, about his chosen deity not being culpable in any way for its creation, you seem determined to ignore this, who knows why?