On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

The English translation calls him omnipotent, so you are partially right about that. However

Greek definition from the Strong's Concordance:

1 he who holds sway over all things
2 the ruler of all
3 almighty: God

This is the only time this word is used in the Bible, and it has three possible meanings, only the first of which has any semblance to omnipotence, but it is still not the same thing as the English understanding of "omnipotence;" it merely describes him having "sway" over all things, not unbridled power. Nor is God described as being omnipotent anywhere else, but is described several times in context as having certain limitations, whether self-imposed or otherwise.

I would suggest doing more exhaustive research when trying to "one-up" someone for the purposes of appearing smarter than them about a particular topic, especially when you have no idea what their pre-existing level of knowledge on the subject is, or how much larger it is than yours. For example: I was smart enough to remember that the Bible was not written in English and you were not. There, that is how you effectively how you one-up somebody.

What is the semantic difference between 'almighty' and 'omnipotent'?

Boru

One has a specific Greek word to denote it, pantodinamos, and the other offers it as a potential title for God. But the more important point is you have again shown yourself as Biblically uneducated, and I again get to point out your ignorance on the subject. The passage you are quoting from is specifically set after God REGAINS full control of the earth and it's inhabitants at the very end of Revelation, which the Bible explicitly states he does not currently have. The Bible makes it clear that Satan is the king of this world and directs it's affairs currently. So your original point is still invalid. And I again reiterate that it's unwise to claim to know more about a book you've presumably skimmed a few times than someone who's studied it for their entire life.

Perhaps it would be more helpful to actually read the words in context than to merely look up definitions on Google and immediately declare victory.

---

My previous definition made no assumption of omnipotence, merely power to influence events to some superhuman degree.

Of course, since you have no evidence or good reason to believe that such a being exists (disregarding your emotions and intuitions), it's quite convenient to define your concept as vague and elastic as the present circumstances demand i.e. how you "feel" about it. Hence, you agree:

Feel include that to the definition now. As for, "to some superhuman degree," I could spend all day defining this for myself, but the point of the post is really to get YOUR opinion on what you think would be the subtlest possible level of this sort of influence which would make you reconsider whether your current conception of God is true or not.

Now you're basically just affirming: If there are any forces in the Universe that we currently do not understand or are unable to explain, believe this about it and call it (he?) god.

When that thing gets explained, you'll say, "yes, but we need god to explain that!"

Maybe we need a god to explain god? Of course, revert to the elasticity of your meaningless concept and require that all questions stop there. It's a great strategy to conclude all thought, not to do philosophy.

In other words, what is your bare minimum for the miraculous? I've yet to hear from someone who's personal burden of proof is as low as or lower than mine, which is perfectly fine. That is, however, the reason why I feel no need to share my personal testimony of strange occurrences, as it would be fruitless if no one would care about it anyway.

Your personal experiences don't tell you anything about the origins of the Universe or beings that live in other dimensions. Dead ancestors aren't really speaking to you (not that you're into that really, but your bar is so low it wouldn't actually make any difference than your present claim).

You misunderstood the causes underlying your experiences. Get over it. Learn what actually happened so that you can repeat them, or grow from them as a more rational, ethical human being.

I feel we've already made all the progress we are going to make in our previous exchanges, and you are merely reiterating everything you've said before which I have disagreed with and given reasons for, so I am simply going to agree to disagree at this point. I am however interested in where Stimbo was going with his point.

---

Well, not to be flippant, but if I'm correct you WILL eventually. He's a pretty nice guy, so if you're a decent person he'll probably be very understanding about the whole thing. I wish you sincere luck with that.

So the thread is about the nature of evidence, and you come back with how God is a pretty nice guy and how we are going to meet him? Really?

Yes, that is an attempt to say something nice to someone I am clearly not going to convince and would like to leave with a kind word. What is your specific problem with that?