The logical consequences of omnipotence

[Esquilax]

I see you squirming. And so you should.

Don't make preposterous claims without some means to back them up. Burden of proof n all that.

It's been fun

Just for fun, could you let me know what my original claim was? Keep in mind, a claim is a positive statement. A claim requires evidence, but I didn't really make one, now did I? What I did, in fact, was point out that something doesn't make sense in someone else's- namely your- claim. You can act as cocksure as you like, it doesn't change the fact that you've repeatedly failed to so much as defend your own position, instead opting to pretend like I have some burden of proof to... what, exactly? What am I required to prove? What claim have I made?

Must I prove my thinking on omnipotence? Why? Your bible is the one making that claim, I'm merely taking it through to its logical conclusion. Your claims are the ones that are fucking up, here. Not mine. Asking me to prove your god is capable of something makes little sense because I don't believe he exists. And asking me to do anything about omnipotence merely requires a look in the dictionary.

Try to actually contribute something of any intellectual merit before you claim victory, next time. Hell, try to provide anything next time, instead of resorting to the old playground standby, "No, you!"

Either that, or you could stop talking. That'd be just as appreciated.

Atheists... They look in the Mirror and they see perfection.

*sigh *

I look in the mirror and see my face. My pallid death mask, more like.

Meanwhile, you look in the mirror and see a being chosen by god, and created in the image of an all powerful universe creator with a special destiny to be by his side forever.

Do you even have a fucking sense of irony? Pot, meet kettle.

[fr0d0]

Only all of that is wrong: an omnipotent god is capable of envisioning a method by which he can intervene in the world to stop suffering without interfering with free will, and has the power to employ such a strategy. An omnipotent god can envision ways to do absolutely anything regardless of whatever justification for inaction anyone can come up with, by definition.

For our mentally challenged members, let's look at the above statement and see if ere can find a claim being made.

Definite statement: " an omnipotent god is capable of envisioning a method by which he can intervene in the world to stop suffering without interfering with free will, and has the power to employ such a strategy. An omnipotent god can envision ways to do absolutely anything regardless of whatever justification for inaction anyone can come up with, by definition. "

This is not backed up by the poster, merely asserted.

Totally different to the Christian apologetic, who can back up his/her assertions.

What we see above is someone indulging in wild fantasy, totally detached from prior reasoning, although you would be forgiven for thinking that the author takes his information from biblical Christianity. Yet this bears no resemblance at all to biblical Christianity.

I see you squirming, and I fully understand why. You commit the crime you accuse theists of. Making a wild and baseless claim. Go ahead and defend it once more, and try again to change the subject to me. The stupid need more glaring examples of their own Hypocrisy.

[Esquilax]

Fr0d0, for you:

Ah, you've made the key mistake many theists do, of assuming their opinion about something is more important than the facts about it.

Seriously, you got an issue, take it up with a dictionary, not with me. You want a god that's omnipotent (or "all knowing and all powerful," or any other kind of verbal gymnastics you want to use to avoid the question) then you have to accept the definition of omnipotence. It means that one can achieve anything. It means having unlimited power.

Therefore, I am justified in saying that a god that can do anything has nothing they cannot do. You can bitch about words meaning what they mean all you want, it still doesn't bring your typical theist non-arguments anywhere close to addressing my point.

[fr0d0]

Seriously, you got an issue, take it up with a dictionary, not with me.

If you want to address Christianity, you need to address it precisely. The error you have made here is to force an inapplicable, inaccurate and vague definition

[Esquilax]

If you want to address Christianity, you need to address it precisely. The error you have made here is to force an inapplicable, inaccurate and vague definition

Or rather, one that you find inconvenient.

Omnipotence has a single definition, and it is a very short one. It's only vague by dint of the immensity of the concept it embodies. Now, if you wanted to make an argument that there are limits on god, that'd be a different story. Or an argument about god's motivations, that'd work too.

Mainstream Christianity presents their god as being able to accomplish anything. That's omnipotence, and that's what I was addressing. If you have some other opinion on the matter, then please state it so we can get on with a discourse. At the moment, all you've done is shake your head and stick your fingers in your ears, and that's hardly conducive to anything.

[Zen Badger]

Besides, I don't need to have an alternative solution to a problem I can see in someone else's theory for the problem to become valid or real.

I agree with you. However, I've seen many atheists argue the opposite in context of evolution.

Except Evolution has evidence to back it up.

[fr0d0]

Or rather, one that you find inconvenient.

One that doesn't apply you jerk.

[John V]

Or rather, one that you find inconvenient.

Omnipotence has a single definition, and it is a very short one. It's only vague by dint of the immensity of the concept it embodies. Now, if you wanted to make an argument that there are limits on god, that'd be a different story. Or an argument about god's motivations, that'd work too.

Mainstream Christianity presents their god as being able to accomplish anything. That's omnipotence, and that's what I was addressing. If you have some other opinion on the matter, then please state it so we can get on with a discourse. At the moment, all you've done is shake your head and stick your fingers in your ears, and that's hardly conducive to anything.

Surely you'll agree that mainstream Christianity does not present God as being able to sin. Therefore:

1. Christianity does not present God as being omnipotent by your definition, or

2. Sin is not a "thing" which can be accomplished.

Which is it?

[fr0d0]

Surely you'll agree that mainstream Christianity does not present God as being able to sin. Therefore:

1. Christianity does not present God as being omnipotent by your definition, or

2. Sin is not a "thing" which can be accomplished.

Which is it?

So if God cannot be illogical then God cannot be omnipotent.

LMFAO

I think you need to work on your logic there

[Zen Badger]

Or rather, one that you find inconvenient.

Omnipotence has a single definition, and it is a very short one. It's only vague by dint of the immensity of the concept it embodies. Now, if you wanted to make an argument that there are limits on god, that'd be a different story. Or an argument about god's motivations, that'd work too.

Mainstream Christianity presents their god as being able to accomplish anything. That's omnipotence, and that's what I was addressing. If you have some other opinion on the matter, then please state it so we can get on with a discourse. At the moment, all you've done is shake your head and stick your fingers in your ears, and that's hardly conducive to anything.

Surely you'll agree that mainstream Christianity does not present God as being able to sin. Therefore:

1. Christianity does not present God as being omnipotent by your definition, or

2. Sin is not a "thing" which can be accomplished.

Which is it?

Since your god is guilty of just about every "sin" there is, jealousy, hatred, envy, etc,etc, yet is still perfect.

The logical conclusion is that it is only sin if humans do it, god gets a free pass to be a prick.