The logical consequences of omnipotence

[Ryantology]

Umm, by definition it must. One *cannot* understand anything thing modified with 'with God'... without God. It's really that simple.

That can only be true if God exists. And there is no evidence he does. We are all no more with God than we are with Harry Potter.

Even if God were a human invention (we're putting humans on a pedestal the really don't deserve here)... that does not change the fact that one cannot understand a thing with God... without.

Until there is evidence of God's existence, this is an unacceptable statement.

That God *does* comply with logic doesn't mean he necessarily must. Why would he create a rule he planned to break, however? You're overthinking things.

Then, we're back to "can God make a rock God cannot lift", and the unanswered problem of omnipotence. We've gotten nowhere.

God didn't come from nothing under such an argument, as it's implied he is eternal and has always been. Funny thing about metaphysics: they don't have to work with physics.

It is a baseless assertion (metaphysics) backing up another baseless assertion (God's existence) supported by a baseless assertion (it is possible for anything to be eternal).

Metaphysics is a term which gives respect to absurdity.

You do realize that by proxy, you're also stating that the Big Bang couldn't have happened in a vacuum. Ultimately, this entire exercise is pointless because of this: Everything exists. And humans are pretty limited in their scope

The Big Bang could not have happened in a vacuum. All the stuff that makes up the universe was already there, condensed into a singularity. We have no idea of what that state was like, but there is no paradox to avoid.

Assuming you're right... why not worship a being with the power to wipe your entire civilization out? It seems to me I'd rather be on its good side, or at least not on its bad side.

I don't worship a being who is said to have that power, and nothing has happened.

Because Solipsism, am I right? You *cannot* demonstrate that any other perspective than your own exists anywhere but in your own head. Much as I despise them for their absence of faith: they are right.

It is not solipsism at all. I can make the easy assumption that there are other human perspectives, because I see compelling evidence that other humans exist and operate, mentally, in a fashion very similar to myself. I can make a convincing argument, falling just short of objective evidence, that I am not the only conscious human in the world. Such does not apply to God.

I'd note that the bible even states that we were made in God's image... so comparing us to him and finding no difference is to state precisely that the Bible is correct.

Unless you can prove that the Bible is an infallible account of God, then all it proves is that the writers of the Bible were not as imaginative as we are.

What makes it a dogpile is that he's outnumbered by more than 5, and what makes it stupid is the requests being asked of him. It really does take no intellect to jump on a bandwagon that doesn't make any sense, only faith in its truth... and it does require one to be satisfied with their ignorance, as if they took a moment to question their party, they might find they disagree with its tenets.

This is mindblowing. If a person makes an assertion he cannot prove or in any way demonstrate to have any basis in reality, we're stupid to require him to make that demonstration? We may as well not have brains, if that is how we are supposed to think.

Actually, once a thing as been assumed as true, it IS logical to use logic to defend it. The circular logic that many Christians use to defend their religion *is identical* to the circular logic that we use to defend *logic itself*. There is no evidence outside itself for it being so...

It is not identical. Logic itself can be defensed by observation and empirical inquiry. It can be tested. Assertions of God are specifically designed to avoid testing, because testing that faith shows its fraudulent nature.

It is true that both ultimately end up requiring us to make assumptions, but logic has a definite buffer between itself and pure solipsism. God has none. It exists 100% as a subjective experience even according to those who accept it, and what better defines 'solipsism'?