Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

My little mind can see no way that it is remotely possible that omnipotence is the power to do anything and everything

Your little mind is obviously not too big on definitions then.

If God cannot be omnipotent, then God cannot be what Christians believe him to be, so I will then be closer to believing that the Christian God is imagined, rather than real.

So you say.

Personally I think it's taking you an incredibly long time to think this shit over.

True. I am one who,

… cares not whether his words are many or few, so long as he attains the truth.

(Theaetetus, 172)

This thread full of philosobabble, it's pointless, and gets nowhere nearer to discerning whether there is or is not a god.

What a waste of time.

Are you saying it's pointless for me to listen to people's reasons why they don't believe in God before deciding whether they are good reasons why I should not believe in God? I'm being told it is impossible for God to be omnipotent and at the same time, omniscient and omnibenevolent. I'm wondering what those who tell me this are thinking omnipotence is, since it seems to me it is impossible for omnipotence to be the power to do anything and everything. But do you disagree? Before dismissing my assumption, why not consider why I hold it? I might have something worth considering (or I might not) but you will never know if you don't find out.

---

No need to apologize! It would be ad hominum if he said some point I was making was untrue because I was an insincere person. In this case, I think Mister A. was correct, and we both were mistaken.

Not to labor the point but calling someone a liar (by euphemism) is an ad hominem because it attacks the person not the idea.

Whether or not you are "sincere" bears no logical relevance to the discussion. In fact, your sincerity or otherwise is a completely separate proposition.

Debate topic "A" - Smoking should/shouldnt be banned
Debate topic "B" - People who thing smoking should be banned arent sincere.

In argument, we dont say..."You're a liar, youre insincere, I think thats a lie, or I think you are lying, or liar liar pants on fire, or you secretly know I'm right and refuse to admit it, blah, blah.."

Why not?

Because there's simply no need to.

If something is untrue, you demonstrate this with logic, reason, evidence NOT with accusations about how believable a person is.

In fact, whether the person stating something, (which is demonstrably untrue,) is doing so deliberately or mistakenly is formally irrelevant.

If it really WASNT an ad hominem remark, then the person making that remark is required (IMHO) to justify having made it by providing an alternative explanation for having used such a comment during the course of an intellectual discussion.

You dont get to quarantine your ad hominem atttack on your opponent behind some firewall and then claim that you werent calling them a liar to try and (illogically) discredit their case.
This is the internet. The public square. There is an audience. And the purpose of an ad hom isnt to make your opponent FEEL bad.

People would do better, if they really must call their ideological opponent a moron/loony/retard/etc. to just get on with it and stop wasting time with some protracted defence that its not really an ad hom....

- if it's true
- if it's not connected to the topic
- if you were "just kidding"

You might be right, there.

---

Yes, I have to concede that God is not omniscient if by omniscient we mean he can (and does) do anything at all.

...
What? You meant omnipotent when you said omniscient here, right? I'll work off that assumption. Simple mistake.

For example, Paul writes of the:

...God, who does not lie... .

(Titus 1:2)

An omnipotent God would have the capacity to lie, which is apparently against his nature, thus you dismiss a God who is capable of everything. Other reasons you might dismiss this include the logically contradictory nature of omnipotence and the simple illustrations of this.

One might say that being dishonest is something God is powerless to do. For if God were dishonest, he would be unwise (and so not omniscient) and unloving (and so not omnibenevolent).

I don't know about a God, but for humanity lies can be pragmatic and even purely beneficial for all parties. Some lies are actually made by the wise in an educated manner. Still, this is just me nitpicking... a habit I have.

Of all the choices there are to a sentient being, the only things God has the freedom to choose are those that are not just a demonstration of perfect powerful alone, but also a demonstration of perfect wisdom and love.

Perfect power means that which doesn't contradict his other attributes? Perfect. This is what my original contention works off of. This argument doesn't really apply to a different God who can do anything.

But here is what I wonder: Does God not lie because he is powerless to lie, or does God not lie because he has the power to lie, but chooses to not lie? If the latter, rather than the former is true, then I'm thinking God truly is all-powerful, but chooses (by reason of wisdom and love) to restrain his power.

If he cannot lie/ his nature doesn't permit him to lie then he has no choice in the matter. He wouldn't be the same God that those who worship him defined him as; he would be completely different. This is the penalty for having so many "omni"s to your name.

But please tell me: Do you think omnipotence is having the power to do everything, or do you think omnipotence is not only having the power to do everything but also doing everything?

I hope we can get back on topic soon and leave my mistakes in definition in the past.
Omnipotence is the capacity to do anything. If you are able to do something then you have the chance to perform the action at any point in time. If your nature is perfectly good, then you would be unable of killing someone unjustifiably. You would be incapable of the act. If you were perfectly loving, you would be unable to see those you love in pain that served no purpose and if you knew everything you would know that the pain that those people were suffering was unnecessary. Stuff like that.

I think it will help to consider whether your definition of omnipotence is a viable one before we proceed to applying it to any concept of God: Let's say a guy named Ed becomes omnipotent. He is neither omniscient, nor omnibenevolent. He just has that power we call omnipotence. Now Ed is a dishonest person, which is something he does not like about himself. He decides that now that he has the power to change himself, he is going to use it to make himself 100% honest 100% of the time.

My question is this: Once Ed makes himself perfectly and always honest, can he still tell a lie? If he cannot lie, then how can omnipotence be the power to do anything and everything? I'm thinking some choices are mutually exclusive. What are you thinking?