The logical consequences of omnipotence

[Violet]

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.

Everything exists, which is self-evidential. Just as with God, you cannot have 'X belief with Harry Potter'... without Harry Potter. It is simple logic, pick better battles.

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

The evidence of God's existence is *all around you*. Literally. But only if you've arrived at the basis of God in the first place. Simply: by reaching this point, everything becomes evidence of God (since the being made everything), without coming to it: nothing is evidential of God. Which can actually be pretty damn convincing, if you think about it

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

If God can contradict logic? He absolutely can. And then he can lift the rock he couldn't lift (we've abandoned logic, no?). Alternately... why would God perform a task that is impossible by his rules?

Use your head: What a thing is capable of INCLUDES their mentality. I'm not actually capable of killing anyone intentionally, despite my physical ability to do so.

Of course... I love seeing the word 'logic' thrown out in the same post as a loaded question. That shit's entertaining because it's stupid, you're not helping your case here... I mean, when did you last rape your daughter?

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, of course, realize... METAPHYSICS ARE ABSURD. They do not comply with your tiny human understanding of physics. The cosmos IS eternal, as it has always been, so forever shall it be... and this is simple physics and philosophy, we're not even going into metaphysics or metaphor here: IT SHALL ALWAYS EXIST, regardless of what its existence consists of.

Unless of course, there is no universe at all, and we are just tiny bits data in a game. Metaphysics are not meant to be understood with physics, it is impossible Not applicable.

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.

Well there you have it: the universe is eternal, by your own statement. Now you tell me: how must God not be *just like the universe you've stated to be an eternal process*?

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

* Violet shrugs.

Yet. It's nice when a god grows up and matures, isn't it?

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.

Oh, I'm sure you do. Because you can place blind faith into what you see, isn't that lovely? I can make a convincing argument for *anything in the fucking world*, and unless I am *actually generating the universe*: I will eternally fall short of objective evidence.

You are as likely the only conscious human in the world as there is not a God. I can make baseless and philosophically retarded statements too, only I don't pretend for a moment that I'm better than you. Regardless, you might want to learn about philosophy before you start shitting it out your left ankle, because girl: you got some work to do.

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.

The Bible is the word of God.
The Bible tells me it is the word of God.
The Bible is infallible.

A=A
≠A≠A
A≠≠A

Neither of these things has *any* evidence except from itself. The first is the Bible, the second is Logic itself.

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.

You're building straw men here, fr0d0 has yet to make an assertion he cannot prove or demonstrate, but you've certainly asked him to make *many* demonstrations that cannot be made. I'm not really one for shifting crimes off on other people, yknow?

Indeed, you may as well not have brains, if this is how you mistreat them.

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.

... Only after assuming logic to be true, can it be defended by observation or empirical inquiry. Same goes for God, the moment God is assumed true: it can be defended by observation and empirical inquiry. Assertions of God are made by the faithful, who often do not understand that without God these assertions fall apart, just as assertions against God are made by the unfaithful, who often do not understand that with God: these assertions fall apart.

I call it 'bliss'.

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'?

Oh definitely, but logic has ABSOLUTELY NO BUFFER between itself and doubt... if you doubt logic, then logic cannot defend the assertions made against it. QED.

God has none, it's true. Infact... nothing you can possibly believe has a buffer between itself and doubt... either there is faith and it is true and the universe works with it, or there is not faith and it is false and the universe does not apply to it.

What best defines solipsism is an absence of faith in any but logic. By logic, the only thing we can demonstrate is the self and logic. It has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity, as by itself: there is no functional difference between the two, as they exist one and the same.

All beliefs are 100% subjective, regardless of whether they are intersubjectively recognized as being true. So if they DIDN'T admit that God is subjective: they'd be wrong, like you in your intent of declaring it subjective.