You know you are my favourite theist on these boards Tack, but...
Does Toyota have total control of the breaks in their cars?
You completely ignored the meat of the question Tarv raised!
Tarv pointed out that it is logically impossible to be all knowing and all powerful at the same time, and rather than addressing his logical syllogism, you have introduced white-noise to the issue.
Do you find anything invalid in the statement that a being who knows his own future is unable to alter it?
That single sentence supports tarv's statement to a T, so until you can invalidate that proposition it's self, your responses are erroneous nonsense.
Excuse me, but fuck all languages... i thought we were speaking English here...
Please think before you type... Language is not confined to this universe alone, a 3 dimensional square in another universe is still adequately described as a cube.... is it not? Would we be required to call 'Dark" something else if we moved to another universe x?
Also, what knowledge do you have of the languages in other universes that would allow you to so confidently describe our definitions as meaningless in that place?
No... purple is our response to a specific segment of the electromagnetic spectrum being detected by our eyes, if we were to observe the same spectrum in another universe would you not describe it as purple? If this spectrum does not exist in the 'other universe' then your inclusion of it in this argument is meaningless nonsense.
the preceding sentence is entirely meaningless nonsense...
No, he is saying that omniscient/omnipresent God knows everything he will ever do, therefore he cannot change his mind, else he does not know it from the time before he changed his mind, therefore he either lacks the power to change anything he sees happening, or does not see everything that he will do. So he cannot logically be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.
Oh come on... you are basically saying that "most everything came from something, therefore nothing could possibly came from nothing, except god" If you can look at that statement and feel intellectually satisfied (or if you object to that statement but can find no logical exception) the you are a datf cunt, plain and simple.
If you can't possibly know what exists outside the universe (and therefore outside time) then why are you anything other than a blabbering idiot for believing that God is the one exception to the rule?
tackattack Wrote:1-You're stating God isn't all powerful. Why would the creator of something have less than total control over the entirety of that creation?
Does Toyota have total control of the breaks in their cars?
Quote:2-You're stating to be all knowing and all powerfull is contradictory. I guess I'm not seeing the connection between the force used to affect something and the knowledge/possibilities of those somethings. For instance suppose I knew everything about this 1 butterfly, I knew the entirety of his life and choices and every choice he could have made and everything that did and could happen to it. How does that knowledge matter at all to whether I decide to snatch the butterfly and pin him to a book? Obviously, I knew that it would happen to him. Does the fact I knew what I would do mean the butterfly is any less effectively in the book. What I'm asking is that how exactly does any amount of knowledge affect my ability to grab the butterfly.
You completely ignored the meat of the question Tarv raised!
Tarv pointed out that it is logically impossible to be all knowing and all powerful at the same time, and rather than addressing his logical syllogism, you have introduced white-noise to the issue.
Do you find anything invalid in the statement that a being who knows his own future is unable to alter it?
That single sentence supports tarv's statement to a T, so until you can invalidate that proposition it's self, your responses are erroneous nonsense.
Quote:3- Words do have meaning. The default assumption of almost all language
Excuse me, but fuck all languages... i thought we were speaking English here...
Quote: is that it's confined to within this universe.
Please think before you type... Language is not confined to this universe alone, a 3 dimensional square in another universe is still adequately described as a cube.... is it not? Would we be required to call 'Dark" something else if we moved to another universe x?
Also, what knowledge do you have of the languages in other universes that would allow you to so confidently describe our definitions as meaningless in that place?
Quote: You and I agree on a definition of purple and agree that outsides the laws of this universe, what we currently see as purple might not hold true.
No... purple is our response to a specific segment of the electromagnetic spectrum being detected by our eyes, if we were to observe the same spectrum in another universe would you not describe it as purple? If this spectrum does not exist in the 'other universe' then your inclusion of it in this argument is meaningless nonsense.
Quote: I'm not moving any goal posts, just stating the assumption with the definition. God is all powerful, with the assumption within this universe.
the preceding sentence is entirely meaningless nonsense...
Quote:4- It has everything to do with being productive. When you're saying God is impotent or ineffective, then you're saying there are no productive results from any actions he takes, because he is locked into a course of action. He may not be able to produce anything outside of what he already knows will happen, but he knows everything therefore everything is still within his pervue.
No, he is saying that omniscient/omnipresent God knows everything he will ever do, therefore he cannot change his mind, else he does not know it from the time before he changed his mind, therefore he either lacks the power to change anything he sees happening, or does not see everything that he will do. So he cannot logically be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.
Quote:5- With regards to your human body analogy, I think it's inaccurate. I'm not saying anything is like a small part is somehow inadmissable to a majority. I'm saying that I don't know what happens or exists outside this universe; but, becuase the majority of the objects in the know universe do not make themselves from nothing, the likelhood of the universe being created is exceptionally high.
Oh come on... you are basically saying that "most everything came from something, therefore nothing could possibly came from nothing, except god" If you can look at that statement and feel intellectually satisfied (or if you object to that statement but can find no logical exception) the you are a datf cunt, plain and simple.
Quote:6- I don't attribute just the things I confirm to God, I contibute existence in it's entirety to God. You want to know where my doubt lies, it lies in the fact I don't think we can know what, if anything exists outside the universe.
If you can't possibly know what exists outside the universe (and therefore outside time) then why are you anything other than a blabbering idiot for believing that God is the one exception to the rule?
.
