NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: Blake on November 10, 2003, 06:32:32 pm
-
I thought about starting a thread about this a while back, kept putting it off and didn't know if I should, or how some would react.
Well there are a lot of really smart people on here who's opinion's and thoughts on things make alot of sense to me, so I wanna put some of my thoughts down for you all and tell me what you think.
DM's Thoughts Contradicting a god of any form: These are my believes not nessessarily those of nessaholics.com or those who read these forums :wink: [/i]
Okay, according to "The Bible" "god" is a "fair and just god." How in the world can he claim to be fair with a world like this.
There are mentally ill people, rich people, poor people, smart people, stupid people, good looking people, ugly people, annoying people, "cool" people, and so on.
How can some people be rich, smart, "cool", good looking, and all the good stuff, when there are mentally and physically ill people who live, but don't get to live life?
I mean come on, we all know those perfect people. And we've seen hobo's and mentally ill people, atleast most of us should have. Do they look like their enjoying life?
You can't seriously say yes, because you know your lying if you do.
I mean I rambel like crazy, and I didn't include everything I've wanted in there, but that makes a point I hope.
My next point: Predeterminded Fait. (Sorry I'm not a great speller)
"The Bible" says that were not stringed puppets, moved by what he says to do. Supposivly we have free choices to do as we please.
"The Bible" also says that "god" knows exactly what we are going to do before we do it.
If "god" knows what were going to be doing before we do it, what's the point? Why live, why do what is known to be done? Really it's already done.
I mean if he knows what were going to do, before we do it, he supposivly knows what I'm going to type after this and what it will say, and what I will misspell and everything. The only reason I am still typing this is so you can read it.
I see no point to life now either, I think it is idiotic that "god created us" now. Because he knows what were going to do, why would he create us?
I mean, take this crappy example: You see someone get hit by a car, you watch someone else call 911 on their cell phone. Do you call also? No because they have already done it, you know what is going to happen, and you calling will not make the ambulance come any faster.
I know I'm really rambling and my examples and stuff make sense to me, but I've probably flipped out everyone, :?
For any of you who do understand though...I'd like to hear what you think. What your religious views and such are too...
While I'm at this...I've decided to "lie low" for a while. I'm having one of those depressing type times like I used to have frequently, and so I start acting quit weird when it happens, so forgive me now for being stupid and ignorant in anyway. I already know I'm a moron.
It's not that I'm leaving the board, or anything, but I'm tired of the way I'm living and the things I do time after time, so I'll be mostly reading posts, and if I feel the need, I'll reply.
I'll be on AIM, but I might not respond, I'm just not having a good period in my "life." So please understand me.
Thank you everyone for your kindness and understanding ahead of time...
[D]
-
my dad always told me never to talk religon or politics. I think he was wise. I need to learn to listen to him more often :oops:
edit: not that there is nothing wrong with talking religon, just I don't want to get involved because my views aren't like most peoples. But I love everyones religons!!!!!! :)
-
"i've learned that there are three things you should never talk about with people: religion, politics, and The Great Pumpkin" ~Linus
-
mister marko if you need to talk, i am here...or if i am not pm me.
-
Daniel.. you know my beliefs.. but i agree with you that it doesn't seem right or fair that some ppl seem to have it so good and others suffer so greatly. It doesn't make sense to me.. and i don't know that it ever will. I'm not going to debate about things because i know you have valid reasons for what you are saying... not that i completely agree with all that you think, but thats alrite.
*i adore you... and i'm always here for you and i hope you know that, so pleeease talk to me sweetie. I know life doesn't always treat you fairly, and I honestly don't know why, you deserve the best..* <3
-
i'll say nothing but that i have faith
-
"i've learned that there are three things you should never talk about with people: religion, politics, and The Great Pumpkin" ~Linus
Best. Peanuts Quote. Evaaaaaar!!11!11elventyone567^0
Edit: @Pete - that's the simplest and most complete religious position I have ever heard. Not being sarchastic either, I'm dead serious. There is no better basis for religion than simple faith.
-
"i've learned that there are three things you should never talk about with people: religion, politics, and The Great Pumpkin" ~Linus
Best. Peanuts Quote. Evaaaaaar!!11!11elventyone567^0
word
Edit: @Pete - that's the simplest and most complete religious position I have ever heard. Not being sarchastic either, I'm dead serious. There is no better basis for religion than simple faith.
agreed, nicely said pete.
-
First of all, when the Bible says that God is a just God, that's his definition of just. He defines just. Your statement falls into the trap that Christianity really cares too much about this life. So what if your life sucks? You deal with it correctly, you will have your rewards. Think of the parable of the talents here if you want to know a bit more about this.
Secondly, with the predestination thing. Ok, God knows what's next. You still can watch a movie after seeing it before and knowing the ending, right?
I'm sorry. Maybe I'll go into more detail tomorrow. Just got home and it's too late to be doing this.
-
Religion is a cruch used to fill an empty part in peoples lives.
Notice how very few rich people are followers of religions?
(Barring Scientology of course, with which I am currently formulating plans to destroy.)
-
Religion is a cruch used to fill an empty part in peoples lives.
Atheism is a crutch to alleviate the implications of the existence of God.
Notice how very few rich people are followers of religions?
They probably feel that they have the most to alleviate.
-Kev
-
Religion is a cruch used to fill an empty part in peoples lives.
Notice how very few rich people are followers of religions?
(Barring Scientology of course, with which I am currently formulating plans to destroy.)
That's not because religion is a crutch.. that's because religion discourage the kinds of activities that tend to make you rich.
Now ORGANIZED religion OFTEN is a crutch for people who aren't strong enough to support their own faith and needs the agreement of others to help them. Because, to be honest, how many people do you know who are part of an organized religion that actually agree 100% with the teachings of that religion? So if you don't agree, then why be a part of it?
But personal religion is no more a crutch than science or philosophy. It's a set of beliefs to explain things that would otherwise be unpossible to understand.
EDIT @ DM.
Daniel, i think you are asking the wrong questions. The better question is, if God knows EVERYTHING then he also knows every choice HE will (has already?) make. Therefore, can God change his mind? The universal "omnipotence means he can do anything that is not a logical impossibility" theological statement tries to fill this in but it falls short IMHO.
My favorite philisophical question (ala Homer Simpson): Could God make a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it? :wink:
-
'The Problem of Evil' is exactly what we're doing in philosophy at the moment. I'll add more when i've finished the topic. You could however say that evil is just the absence of good (as St.Augustine did).
Secondly, the problem of him knowing everything. This also runs into the type of creation you believe in, you either are a creationist, you believe in the timeless creation of the world- the idea that God is outside of time, or you believe in the continuous creation of the world- for instance that Abraham's answer to god changed the fate of the world- if so that would mean he didn't know the fate of everyone on earth, he created it according to what certain people have said. Oh its all so confusing! And i have to do a piece of coursework on this!
-
'The Problem of Evil' is exactly what we're doing in philosophy at the moment. I'll add more when i've finished the topic. You could however say that evil is just the absence of good (as St.Augustine did).
Secondly, the problem of him knowing everything. This also runs into the type of creation you believe in, you either are a creationist, you believe in the timeless creation of the world- the idea that God is outside of time, or you believe in the continuous creation of the world- for instance that Abraham's answer to god changed the fate of the world- if so that would mean he didn't know the fate of everyone on earth, he created it according to what certain people have said. Oh its all so confusing! And i have to do a piece of coursework on this!
Ah! But if God is outside of time, then God cannot change. Because Time IS a measure of change.
If God cannot change then god is not omnipotent because he is incapable of something :idea:
-
'The Problem of Evil' is exactly what we're doing in philosophy at the moment. I'll add more when i've finished the topic. You could however say that evil is just the absence of good (as St.Augustine did).
Secondly, the problem of him knowing everything. This also runs into the type of creation you believe in, you either are a creationist, you believe in the timeless creation of the world- the idea that God is outside of time, or you believe in the continuous creation of the world- for instance that Abraham's answer to god changed the fate of the world- if so that would mean he didn't know the fate of everyone on earth, he created it according to what certain people have said. Oh its all so confusing! And i have to do a piece of coursework on this!
Ah! But if God is outside of time, then God cannot change. Because Time IS a measure of change.
If God cannot change then god is not omnipotent because he is incapable of something :idea:
Exactly! And it would also make him unable to change form, wouldn't it? So he wouldn't be incorporeal? But theeen if he could change from being temporal to outside of time, wouldn't that stop him from being immutable? So, that wouldn't make him the God of Classical Theism anymore would it? eh?
Oh i am SO confused. I have to write 3000 words on this! *shakes fist* Bloody philosophy!
-
Oh its all so confusing!
Definatly, and I am one to be easily confused. :oops:
-
Oh i am SO confused. I have to write 3000 words on this! *shakes fist* Bloody philosophy!
Later religious theologians propsed new definitions for God's "omnipotence" that were intended to clear all of this up, but really failed badly. Look into St. Augustine. I think he did some writing on the topic......
I had a GREAT debate about this on another MB, I should dig up that thread and post some of it here....
-
Okay, according to "The Bible" "God" is a "fair and just god." How in the world can He claim to be fair with a world like this.
There are mentally ill people, rich people, poor people, smart people, stupid people, good looking people, ugly people, annoying people, "cool" people, and so on.
How can some people be rich, smart, "cool", good looking, and all the good stuff, when there are mentally and physically ill people who live, but don't get to live life?
I mean come on, we all know those perfect people. And we've seen hobo's and mentally ill people, atleast most of us should have. Do they look like their enjoying life?
You can't seriously say yes, because you know your lying if you do.
Whose fault is it if someone is poor? HUH? It's YOUR fault for complaining about the poverty in our world and not doing a damn thing about it, and it's the poor person's fault. YOURS more than anyones. What, do you expect God to come down and say, "Here, poor person, I'm sorry you're poor, here's some money, go buy a house, clean up, get a job." No He's not going to do that. He's TESTING us to see how we react in that situation. See?
I mean I rambel like crazy, and I didn't include everything I've wanted in there, but that makes a point I hope.
My next point: Predeterminded Fait. (Sorry I'm not a great speller)
"The Bible" says that were not stringed puppets, moved by what He says to do. Supposivly we have free choices to do as we please.
. . . thus it's your fault if you die of a drug overdose, not Gods. Whose choice was it to use herion? (Using examples, evidently.)
"The Bible" also says that "God" knows exactly what we are going to do before we do it.
If "God" knows what were going to be doing before we do it, what's the point? Why live, why do what is known to be done? Really it's already done.
How much f*cking fun would that be?
I mean if He knows what were going to do, before we do it, he supposivly knows what I'm going to type after this and what it will say, and what I will misspell and everything. The only reason I am still typing this is so you can read it.
I see no point to life now either, I think it is idiotic that "God created us" now. Because He knows what were going to do, why would He create us?
To carry on His word. Everything happens for a reason, I'm surprised you haven't figured that out by now.
I mean, take this crappy example: You see someone get hit by a car, you watch someone else call 911 on their cell phone. Do you call also? No because they have already done it, you know what is going to happen, and you calling will not make the ambulance come any faster.
I know I'm really rambling and my examples and stuff make sense to me, but I've probably flipped out everyone, :?
For any of you who do understand though...I'd like to hear what you think. What your religious views and such are too...
While I'm at this...I've decided to "lie low" for a while. I'm having one of those depressing type times like I used to have frequently, and so I start acting quit weird when it happens, so forgive me now for being stupid and ignorant in anyway. I already know I'm a moron.
It's not that I'm leaving the board, or anything, but I'm tired of the way I'm living and the things I do time after time, so I'll be mostly reading posts, and if I feel the need, I'll reply.
I'll be on AIM, but I might not respond, I'm just not having a good period in my "life." So please understand me.
Thank you everyone for your kindness and understanding ahead of time...
[D]
I hope you don't mind I capitalized your references to God, respect didn't hurt anyone. ;)
-
Now ORGANIZED religion OFTEN is a crutch for people who aren't strong enough to support their own faith and needs the agreement of others to help them. Because, to be honest, how many people do you know who are part of an organized religion that actually agree 100% with the teachings of that religion? So if you don't agree, then why be a part of it?
Everything needs a foundation . . . Honest to God, I'd be clueless as shit if I hadn't been raised Catholic. That's just me, though.
PS I hope all the Atheists don't celebrate Christmas. ;)
-
Everything needs a foundation . . . Honest to God, I'd be clueless as hit if I hadn't been raised Catholic. That's just me, though.quote]
8O
That implies that you aren't clueless now :wink:
-
Satan!
-
Satan!
He had to run out to the store.... I'm just his secretary :wink:
-
Daniel, i think you are asking the wrong questions. The better question is, if God knows EVERYTHING then he also knows every choice HE will (has already?) make. Therefore, can God change his mind? The universal "omnipotence means he can do anything that is not a logical impossibility" theological statement tries to fill this in but it falls short IMHO.
My favorite philisophical question (ala Homer Simpson): Could God make a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it? :wink:
As much as it pains me to disagree with anything Homer Simpson says,
Challenge: Can God heat a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?
Response: Yes, because God is omnipotent.
Challenge: In that case God isn't omnipotent because he can't eat a sufficiently hot burrito
Response: Yes He can, because God is omnipotent.
Challenge: How can God do both?
Response: Because God is omnipotent
Why should God be bound by the laws of logic He instigated for His creation any more than he should be bound by His own natural laws of science?
Somebody might make the argument that God couldn't have made the universe from nothing because it violates the law of conservation of mass-energy. Obviously this argument only applies to a God bound by His own created laws. As the Christian God does fit into this definition domain, the argument is irrelevant to the God of the bible.
In the same way, the laws of logic (Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle, etc.) are based on observations we have made within creation. For example, it is never observed that an object is both hot and cold at the same time. Any argument based on these laws falls into the same irrelevancy as the previous argument when applied directly to the omnipotent God of the bible.
-Kev
-
Okay, according to "The Bible" "God" is a "fair and just god." How in the world can He claim to be fair with a world like this.
There are mentally ill people, rich people, poor people, smart people, stupid people, good looking people, ugly people, annoying people, "cool" people, and so on.
How can some people be rich, smart, "cool", good looking, and all the good stuff, when there are mentally and physically ill people who live, but don't get to live life?
I mean come on, we all know those perfect people. And we've seen hobo's and mentally ill people, atleast most of us should have. Do they look like their enjoying life?
You can't seriously say yes, because you know your lying if you do.
Whose fault is it if someone is poor? HUH? It's YOUR fault for complaining about the poverty in our world and not doing a damn thing about it, and it's the poor person's fault. YOURS more than anyones. What, do you expect God to come down and say, "Here, poor person, I'm sorry you're poor, here's some money, go buy a house, clean up, get a job." No He's not going to do that. He's TESTING us to see how we react in that situation. See?
Actually i think you're wrong on this one. Many people, within reason can go out and find themself a job if they are unemployed. Ever stop to think that maybe there weren't any jobs? This theory follows along the lines of the 'American Dream'- that you can achieve anything no matter what your background. But, as i have argued with Jason many a time, you can only achieve that dream if you fit into a set framework and stereotype.
Say your dad owns a factory, but pays his workers pittence- are they poor because its their fault? No, they're poor because your dad pays them pittence. And there's nothing they can do about it in these situations, i think you need to take a long hard look at the reasons why people are poor- and it may be mainly because the western world has stopped others from becoming rich.
I hope you don't mind I capitalized your references to God, respect didn't hurt anyone. ;)
Yes, a little respect for Daniel's views never hurt anyone either.
-
Why should God be bound by the laws of logic He instigated for His creation any more than he should be bound by His own natural laws of science?
Your statement is a complete impossibility. COMPLETE. If God CAN eat the burrito, then he didn't make it hot enough.
You're falling back on the generic answer of "We are mortal and we can't understand God"... which is fine, but it's a cop out. It's not an answer, it's what religious people say when they don't have an answer.
Somebody might make the argument that God couldn't have made the universe from nothing because it violates the law of conservation of mass-energy. Obviously this argument only applies to a God bound by His own created laws. As the Christian God does fit into this definition domain, the argument is irrelevant to the God of the bible.
In the same way, the laws of logic (Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle, etc.) are based on observations we have made within creation. For example, it is never observed that an object is both hot and cold at the same time. Any argument based on these laws falls into the same irrelevancy as the previous argument when applied directly to the omnipotent God of the bible.
Logic is not a property of observation. We didn't obtain logic via induction the way we obtained the rules of science. Logic isn't based on observation, it is based on the human language. Even if we had no concept of what Hot and Cold are, if we know they are both measures of heat then we know an object cannot be both at the same time (relative to the same starting point).
The rules of science, by their very nature, CAN BE BROKEN. If they can't, then they aren't science (See Popper for clarification). Which is why it is acceptable for God to be able to break the rules of science.
Logic is not a scientific principle, it is a thought process. If a=b and b=c then a=c. I don't care if you are or aren't God. This is a fact of logic. if a!=c then either a!=b or b!=c.
Now, don't get me wrong Kev. Feel free to use the "We can't understand it because he is God" line. But realize that it isn't an answer and is only a cop out. Whenever science says "the answer is there, we just haven't found it yet" creationists jump all over it. I think religion should be held to the same standard.
-
Whose fault is it if someone is poor? HUH? It's YOUR fault for complaining about the poverty in our world and not doing a damn thing about it, and it's the poor person's fault. YOURS more than anyones. What, do you expect God to come down and say, "Here, poor person, I'm sorry you're poor, here's some money, go buy a house, clean up, get a job." No He's not going to do that. He's TESTING us to see how we react in that situation. See?
Actually i think you're wrong on this one. Many people, within reason can go out and find themself a job if they are unemployed. Ever stop to think that maybe there weren't any jobs? This theory follows along the lines of the 'American Dream'- that you can achieve anything no matter what your background. But, as i have argued with Jason many a time, you can only achieve that dream if you fit into a set framework and stereotype.
Say your dad owns a factory, but pays his workers pittence- are they poor because its their fault? No, they're poor because your dad pays them pittence. And there's nothing they can do about it in these situations, i think you need to take a long hard look at the reasons why people are poor- and it may be mainly because the western world has stopped others from becoming rich.
wow, i was going to post practically the same thing. In my soc/psyc class we just finished talking about the poorest cities in America, and I got East St. Louis to research. Most of the people there don't have a job because there are less jobs available than there are people in the city. social mobility is practically impossible. Most of the people there don't have enough money to go somewhere else. Their education system is poor, their schools are practically falling apart, there's open sewage everywhere, their own mayer blames them for these conditions....all these factors play an important role on the reality that these people probably will never be anything more than poor. Is it their fault? ...I'd have to say no.
I see what your saying about people not doing enough to help the poor, and I do agree with you (CeCe) on that one. People should do more. But just because they don't doesn't mean it's the poor person's fault.
-
See, the problem with saying "God isn't fair because look how people suffer" is that you aren't taking into account the cause of the suffering. According to the Bible, God created everything to be perfect. It wasn't until sin entered the world, that everything went to hell...literally and figuratively. It is the fault of Satan, Adam, and Eve (your choice of combinations...I lean towards Adam...BWAHAHAHAHA ;)) that sin entered the world. God told them they had the choice to do what they wanted. They chose to eat from the tree. They broke the rules...knowingly. Therefore it is man's own fault that he suffers. God doesn't look down on someone from Heaven and say "hmm...Bob...you suck *ZAP* now you're poor and can't have a house, or a job, or a family, or food". I know that Christianity teaches that God is fair...He doesn't smite people just for the fun of it. The test of life is that you will still have faith in Him no matter what comes your way. The bad things happen because of the sinful nature of man, not the sadistic will of God.
If that didn't make sense...too bad. I'm tired. :P
-
According to the Bible, God created everything to be perfect. It wasn't until sin entered the world, that everything went to hell...literally and figuratively. It is the fault of Satan, Adam, and Eve (your choice of combinations...I lean towards Adam...BWAHAHAHAHA ;)) that sin entered the world.
One of my favorite discourses about religion is from Douglas Adams and is appropriate here.....
"Your God person puts an apple on a tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Suprise suprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting 'Gotcha.' It wouldn't have made any diffrence if they hadn't eaten it."
"Why not?"
"Because if you're dealing with somebody that has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end."
-
See, the problem with saying "God isn't fair because look how people suffer" is that you aren't taking into account the cause of the suffering. According to the Bible, God created everything to be perfect. It wasn't until sin entered the world, that everything went to hell...literally and figuratively. It is the fault of Satan, Adam, and Eve (your choice of combinations...I lean towards Adam...BWAHAHAHAHA ;)) that sin entered the world. God told them they had the choice to do what they wanted. They chose to eat from the tree. They broke the rules...knowingly. Therefore it is man's own fault that he suffers. God doesn't look down on someone from Heaven and say "hmm...Bob...you suck *ZAP* now you're poor and can't have a house, or a job, or a family, or food". I know that Christianity teaches that God is fair...He doesn't smite people just for the fun of it. The test of life is that you will still have faith in Him no matter what comes your way. The bad things happen because of the sinful nature of man, not the sadistic will of God.
If that didn't make sense...too bad. I'm tired. :P
This is true...
-
I'm an atheist. :)
-
I'm an atheist. :)
And the devil.
-
I'm an atheist. :)
And the devil.
a nice devil though...lol
at least she doesn't believe in the devil.
-
I'm an atheist. :)
And the devil.
a nice devil though...lol
at least she doesn't believe in the devil.
thank you limey. :)
-
Why should God be bound by the laws of logic He instigated for His creation any more than he should be bound by His own natural laws of science?
Your statement is a complete impossibility. COMPLETE. If God CAN eat the burrito, then he didn't make it hot enough.
You're falling back on the generic answer of "We are mortal and we can't understand God"... which is fine, but it's a cop out. It's not an answer, it's what religious people say when they don't have an answer.
Somebody might make the argument that God couldn't have made the universe from nothing because it violates the law of conservation of mass-energy. Obviously this argument only applies to a God bound by His own created laws. As the Christian God does fit into this definition domain, the argument is irrelevant to the God of the bible.
In the same way, the laws of logic (Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle, etc.) are based on observations we have made within creation. For example, it is never observed that an object is both hot and cold at the same time. Any argument based on these laws falls into the same irrelevancy as the previous argument when applied directly to the omnipotent God of the bible.
Logic is not a property of observation. We didn't obtain logic via induction the way we obtained the rules of science. Logic isn't based on observation, it is based on the human language. Even if we had no concept of what Hot and Cold are, if we know they are both measures of heat then we know an object cannot be both at the same time (relative to the same starting point).
The rules of science, by their very nature, CAN BE BROKEN. If they can't, then they aren't science (See Popper for clarification). Which is why it is acceptable for God to be able to break the rules of science.
Logic is not a scientific principle, it is a thought process. If a=b and b=c then a=c. I don't care if you are or aren't God. This is a fact of logic. if a!=c then either a!=b or b!=c.
Now, don't get me wrong Kev. Feel free to use the "We can't understand it because he is God" line. But realize that it isn't an answer and is only a cop out. Whenever science says "the answer is there, we just haven't found it yet" creationists jump all over it. I think religion should be held to the same standard.
Man Andrew, it appears that you have it all figured out! way to go...
I hate talking about politics, abortion, and religion over the internet. All we do is.. well I can't say offend, because that will just cause another smartass remark.
-
Daniel, i think you are asking the wrong questions. The better question is, if God knows EVERYTHING then he also knows every choice HE will (has already?) make. Therefore, can God change his mind? The universal "omnipotence means he can do anything that is not a logical impossibility" theological statement tries to fill this in but it falls short IMHO.
My favorite philisophical question (ala Homer Simpson): Could God make a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it? :wink:
As much as it pains me to disagree with anything Homer Simpson says,
Challenge: Can God heat a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?
Response: Yes, because God is omnipotent.
Challenge: In that case God isn't omnipotent because he can't eat a sufficiently hot burrito
Response: Yes He can, because God is omnipotent.
Challenge: How can God do both?
Response: Because God is omnipotent
Why should God be bound by the laws of logic He instigated for His creation any more than he should be bound by His own natural laws of science?
Somebody might make the argument that God couldn't have made the universe from nothing because it violates the law of conservation of mass-energy. Obviously this argument only applies to a God bound by His own created laws. As the Christian God does fit into this definition domain, the argument is irrelevant to the God of the bible.
In the same way, the laws of logic (Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle, etc.) are based on observations we have made within creation. For example, it is never observed that an object is both hot and cold at the same time. Any argument based on these laws falls into the same irrelevancy as the previous argument when applied directly to the omnipotent God of the bible.
-Kev
Well, God could make a burrito so hot he couldn't eat, because he could make it so hot it wouldn't be a burrito anymore. He would basically heat it out of existance. But as long as it was a burrito he could eat it. If you argue about eating the energy or matter in whatever form that were once a burrito, I would say he could. But I doubt the question is about eating a burrito anymore.
tylor
-
I'm an atheist. :)
lol, nicole, theres a freeway near my house that is sponsered by athiest united and i think of you whenever i see the sign! :)
-
I'm an atheist. :)
lol, nicole, theres a freeway near my house that is sponsered by athiest united and i think of you whenever i see the sign! :)
How do I join?
tylor
-
I'm an atheist. :)
lol, nicole, theres a freeway near my house that is sponsered by athiest united and i think of you whenever i see the sign! :)
How do I join?
tylor
lol, i dunno
dont know much about it, except they sponser part of a freeway
-
sweet! :) you are soo funny Holly! :)
ty you don't join you just are... its the beauty of it all.
-
3:1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven:
3:2 A time to be born, And a time to die; A time to plant, And a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3:3 A time to kill, And a time to heal; A time to break down, And a time to build up;
3:4 A time to weep, And a time to laugh; A time to mourn, And a time to dance;
3:5 A time to cast away stones, And a time to gather stones together; A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
3:6 A time to seek, And a time to lose; A time to keep, And a time to cast away;
3:7 A time to tear, And a time to sew; A time to keep silence, And a time to speak;
3:8 A time to love, And a time to hate; A time for war, And a time for peace.
3:9 What profit has he who works in that in which he labors?
3:10 I have seen the burden which God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with.
3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in their hearts, yet so that man can't find out the work that God has done from the beginning even to the end.
3:12 I know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice, and to do good as long as they live.
3:13 Also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy good in all his labor, is the gift of God.
3:14 I know that whatever God does, it shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it; and God has done it, that men should fear before him.
3:15 That which is has been long ago, and that which is to be has been long ago: and God seeks again that which is passed away.
3:16 Moreover I saw under the sun, in the place of justice, that wickedness was there; and in the place of righteousness, that wickedness was there.
3:17 I said in my heart, "God will judge the righteous and the wicked; for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work."
3:18 I said in my heart, "As for the sons of men, God tests them, so that they may see that they themselves are like animals.
3:19 For that which happens to the sons of men happens to animals. Even one thing happens to them. As the one dies, so the other dies. Yes, they have all one breath; and man has no advantage over the animals: for all is vanity.
3:20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.
3:21 Who knows the spirit of man, whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, whether it goes downward to the earth?"
3:22 Therefore I saw that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his works; for that is his portion: for who can bring him to see what will be after him?
-
That is some funny shizz-hills
-
when we were learning about those passages in school
we then listened to this song, haha
Turn! Turn! Turn! -The Byrds
To everything, turn, turn, turn.
There is a season, turn, turn, turn.
And a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to be born, a time to die.
A time to plant, a time to reap.
A time to kill, a time to heal.
A time to laugh, a time to weep.
To everything, turn, turn, turn.
There is a season, turn, turn, turn.
And a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to build up, a time to break down.
A time to dance, a time to mourn.
A time to cast away stones.
A time to gather stones together.
To everything, turn, turn, turn.
There is a season, turn, turn, turn.
And a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time of love, a time of hate.
A time of war, a time of peace.
A time you may embrace.
A time to refrain from embracing.
To everything, turn, turn, turn.
There is a season, turn, turn, turn.
And a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to gain, a time to lose.
A time to rend, a time to sow.
A time for love, a time for hate.
A time for peace, I swear it's not too late.
-
The couriers went from town to town in Ephraim and Manasseh, as far as Zebulun, but the people scorned and RIDICULED THEM.
and they always will. :(
-
Well, God could make a burrito so hot he couldn't eat, because he could make it so hot it wouldn't be a burrito anymore. He would basically heat it out of existance. But as long as it was a burrito he could eat it. If you argue about eating the energy or matter in whatever form that were once a burrito, I would say he could. But I doubt the question is about eating a burrito anymore.
tylor
This entire conversation went right over your head didn't it?
If God is omnipotent and he makes a burrito REALLY hot, then it would STILL BE A BURRITO if God WANTED it to be a burrito. Otherwise God isn't omnipotent. You're whole thing about "heating it out of existance" is pure speculation and makes NO SENSE within the bounds of this conversation.
Try not to trow in your 2 cents till you can follow the conversation... kthxbabai.
-
Well, God could make a burrito so hot he couldn't eat, because he could make it so hot it wouldn't be a burrito anymore. He would basically heat it out of existance. But as long as it was a burrito he could eat it. If you argue about eating the energy or matter in whatever form that were once a burrito, I would say he could. But I doubt the question is about eating a burrito anymore.
tylor
This entire conversation went right over your head didn't it?
If God is omnipotent and he makes a burrito REALLY hot, then it would STILL BE A BURRITO if God WANTED it to be a burrito. Otherwise God isn't omnipotent. You're whole thing about "heating it out of existance" is pure speculation and makes NO SENSE within the bounds of this conversation.
Try not to trow in your 2 cents till you can follow the conversation... kthxbabai.
lmao... i havent read the whole thread, so i have no idea what you're talking about, but the idea of burritos and God is just really funny to me.
-
DixieChck615 wrote: My boobs are disappointed.
Mine too
-
lmao... i havent read the whole thread, so i have no idea what you're talking about, but the idea of burritos and God is just really funny to me.
Well, the REAL question is "could go make a rock so heavy even he couldn't lift it"
The burrito part is homer simpson's spin :wink:
-
1Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 3What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
makes me think twice about a lot of things...
I only mention these things because this is the religious thread.
-
lmao... i havent read the whole thread, so i have no idea what you're talking about, but the idea of burritos and God is just really funny to me.
Well, the REAL question is "could go make a rock so heavy even he couldn't lift it"
The burrito part is homer simpson's spin :wink:
ooo... i see, lol
-
What if God doesn't even like burritos?
Then what?
*so confused*
;)
-
Well, God could make a burrito so hot he couldn't eat, because he could make it so hot it wouldn't be a burrito anymore. He would basically heat it out of existance. But as long as it was a burrito he could eat it. If you argue about eating the energy or matter in whatever form that were once a burrito, I would say he could. But I doubt the question is about eating a burrito anymore.
tylor
This entire conversation went right over your head didn't it?
If God is omnipotent and he makes a burrito REALLY hot, then it would STILL BE A BURRITO if God WANTED it to be a burrito. Otherwise God isn't omnipotent. You're whole thing about "heating it out of existance" is pure speculation and makes NO SENSE within the bounds of this conversation.
Try not to trow in your 2 cents till you can follow the conversation... kthxbabai.
No, the whole conversation didn't go over my head. haha My aurgument makes perfect sense. My aurgument is I could even make a burrito to hot for God to eat, lol. Because if I heated it enough it would not be a burrito anymore. But before you go on and on about how I can't see the point of the conversation, I'd like to point out that my philosophy, now and in the past, seems to follow a pattern. If you hadn't noticed.
My point is no burrito exists that god could not eat, because god is omnipotent. Any burrito that god could not eat could not exist. The physical laws of nature reflex this because a burrito after being heated to a certain point ceases to exist. Everything in nature reflexes god's will, so don't go on with your nonsense about, "IF God wanted." Everything in nature ceases to exist at some point or another. So there is nothing god could not do within the realm of nature.
*waits for you abusive rambling*
tylor
-
i've refrained from really getting into any real conversation on this topic, but, i just can't resist. As an anthropology major I have to take specific courses in human evolution and there's all this genetics stuff too. I have a really hard time trying to pass these classes because it conflicts with just about EVERYTHING i've learned in my religious education. I'd like to know your thoughts about the whole Creationism vs. Evolution debate. For example, the Scopes Monkey trial.
-
lol... im in my 4th year of religion in highschool, and we always have discussions like this!
but right now we're really into meaning of life and faith expiriences. i'm sposed to journal about how working with 3rd graders was a faith expirience for me... but i dont think it was. i loved working with the little kids, but faith expirience? *confused*
-
sweet! :) you are soo funny Holly! :)
ty you don't join you just are... its the beauty of it all.
I am an athiest. I wanted to know how to join the club! :D So I could be part of a group of people like me......religiously....
tylor
-
sweet! :) you are soo funny Holly! :)
ty you don't join you just are... its the beauty of it all.
I am an athiest. I wanted to know how to join the club! :D So I could be part of a group of people like me......religiously....
tylor
yeah, thats the thing with most religions... you dont have to formally join anything, you just are in a way.
there are some things just validate it more tho, like when i was baptised a few years ago... it made my christianity more real, but i think i always was. my parents just wanted to wait till i was old enough to decide what religion i wanted to be, unlike parents who baptise their infants.
-
Your statement is a complete impossibility. COMPLETE. If God CAN eat the burrito, then he didn't make it hot enough.
You're falling back on the generic answer of "We are mortal and we can't understand God"... which is fine, but it's a cop out. It's not an answer, it's what religious people say when they don't have an answer.
As I was saying to Rosie a couple of days back, I'm out of my depth in almost any level philosophy, it has never been an area of study for me. As such, I'm not trying to be dogmatic about whether God is ineffable or not (I have no idea what the implications of that might be). That's why I tried to put my point in the form of a question "Why should God be bound by logic?" Is your answer "because if God isn't bound by logic we have no chance to intellectualize Him"?
Noted about logic not being a property of observation or a principle of science.
the "omnipotence means he can do anything that is not a logical impossibility" theological statement tries to fill this in but it falls short IMHO
If you have time (and space), why do you feel this falls short? A link would perfectly suffice.
i've refrained from really getting into any real conversation on this topic, but, i just can't resist. As an anthropology major I have to take specific courses in human evolution and there's all this genetics stuff too. I have a really hard time trying to pass these classes because it conflicts with just about EVERYTHING i've learned in my religious education.
It is important to distinquish between the study of genetics and evolution. The study of genetics (just genetics from now on) is a real science that we can use to make observations in the present. Evolution however, is a non-observable belief system about the past (in much the same way as biblical creation or the beliefs of any other religion). Every belief system has the same evidence. The only way to determine which belief system is correct is to see which one best makes sense of the evidence that we have. On a course in human evolution, the results of genetics are interpreted within the evolutionary model, so that's why they conflict with everything you've learned in RE (different models). It shouldn't be assumed that evolution is the only past model with which to interpret the evidence. IMHO, the creationist model makes better sense of the same evidence, but of course there probably isn't a course in creation because evolution has a monopoly on education.
I'd like to know your thoughts about the whole Creationism vs. Evolution debate. For example, the Scopes Monkey trial.
Well the scopes trial isn't really useful for anything more than a history lesson for either side. Almost all the "evidences" presented for evolution have since been discredited even by evolutionists themselves. In a similar way the (embarrassing) defense for creation was comprised of compromising theologians who do not represent what is the creationist position today.
As for the evolution vs creation debate. Me and Andrew had a debate on this board a while back, mainly about whether or not evolution was an impossible process in light of the laws of information theory. Looking back, it seems we had differing definitions of impossible, but it still might be some use to you.
http://forum.nessaholics.com/viewtopic.php?t=2051 (it's in there somewhere :))
-Kev
-
ooh everyone! Expect to be quoted in my philsosophy coursework: "In what ways may modern ideas about evolution conflict with the biblical concept of creation?" AHHHH hee hee.
-
No, the whole conversation didn't go over my head. haha My aurgument makes perfect sense. My aurgument is I could even make a burrito to hot for God to eat, lol. Because if I heated it enough it would not be a burrito anymore. But before you go on and on about how I can't see the point of the conversation, I'd like to point out that my philosophy, now and in the past, seems to follow a pattern. If you hadn't noticed.
My point is no burrito exists that god could not eat, because god is omnipotent. Any burrito that god could not eat could not exist. The physical laws of nature reflex this because a burrito after being heated to a certain point ceases to exist. Everything in nature reflexes god's will, so don't go on with your nonsense about, "IF God wanted." Everything in nature ceases to exist at some point or another. So there is nothing god could not do within the realm of nature.
You contradict yourself multiple times in your own post. God cannot be both omnipotent AND Limited by the realm of nature. Pick on. You sound terribly confused about your own beliefs. If an omnipotent God wanted to make a burrito 8 billion degrees hot but have it STILL BE A BURRITO HE COULD.
So your God is weak and pathetic because he can't even break the rules of nature? Then you don't belong in this dicussion because your "god" is not THE "God" that we are discussing.
Everything in nature doesn't HAVE to cease to exist at some point or another. Not if God doesn't want it to. Or are you making God weak again?
Tylor, you are too analytical minded for this conversation because you aren't following the philisophy behind it. Leave while you still have some dignity intact.
*waits for you abusive rambling*
Masochist much? If you knew the abuse was coming, why bring it on yourself?
-
That's why I tried to put my point in the form of a question "Why should God be bound by logic?" Is your answer "because if God isn't bound by logic we have no chance to intellectualize Him"?
*nods*
We must assume that God would not do things intentionally to confuse us (ala Descarte) because otherwise God is mean and deceitful, and is, therefore, not the God of western philosophy.
Therefore, we must assume that God follows the same rules of logic that God has provided us with. Why would God ask us to love him but not give us the tools to understand him (more Descarte)?
If you have time (and space), why do you feel this falls short? A link would perfectly suffice.
Well, my problem with this explanation is that it doesn't answer the essential problem, all it does is redefine the word so that there is no more problem. The classic definition of Omnipotent is that you can do ANYTHING. No matter what. I don't think Augustine has the right to redefine a word to solve the shortcomings of religion. Invent a new word if he must, but don't reuse one that's already established.
In other words, it's another cop out, which always pisses me off.
I have no personal problem with the idea of a God who is limited to the things that are only logically possible.... I do have a problem with the Catholic dogma redefining the word "Omnipotent". At that point, God isn't omnipotent, he's just REALLY fucking powerful.
it seems we had differing definitions of impossible, but it still might be some use to you.
I still argue that all you showed me was that it was highly improbable... not impossible. Which I completely agree with.
For the benefit of the interested parties, i am gonna link you guys to one of the better religion/philosophy debates I have had in a LONG time.....
WARNING
This link is to a MB populated largely by people 20+ so the arguments may contain LOTS of foul language and there may be refernces that go over your head... and it's about 18 pages long.... but it's a really good read. Primarily follow the points made by Psygno, Herr Kant and myself.
and don't ask me what the site is..... I really don't want to explain it. It's just another MB I ocassionally post on.
Here (http://www.misetings.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5442&perpage=15&pagenumber=7)
-
That's why I tried to put my point in the form of a question "Why should God be bound by logic?" Is your answer "because if God isn't bound by logic we have no chance to intellectualize Him"?
*nods*
Why would God ask us to love him but not give us the tools to understand him (more Descarte)?
Isn't there a theory, that if we understood the way in which God works then we would be halfway to becoming him? In which case we can never understand him, because if we could- that would make us capable of doing the things he does. That would not require faith anymore- that would not make him God.
I'm not saying this is my view at all, but it has been posed. Am i right? I know there are a LOT of flaws to it, just saying it might answer that question.
-
Isn't there a theory, that if we understood the way in which God works then we would be halfway to becoming him? In which case we can never understand him, because if we could- that would make us capable of doing the things he does. That would not require faith anymore- that would not make him God.
I'm not saying this is my view at all, but it has been posed. Am i right? I know there are a LOT of flaws to it, just saying it might answer that question.
There might be, but i've never heard it. It sounds like a bad theory though.... sounds like another cop out by the Catholic Church's scholars.
-
Isn't there a theory, that if we understood the way in which God works then we would be halfway to becoming him? In which case we can never understand him, because if we could- that would make us capable of doing the things he does. That would not require faith anymore- that would not make him God.
I'm not saying this is my view at all, but it has been posed. Am i right? I know there are a LOT of flaws to it, just saying it might answer that question.
There might be, but i've never heard it. It sounds like a bad theory though.... sounds like another cop out by the Catholic Church's scholars.
I wish i could've written that better, because i cannot for the life of me remember what was said in my philosophy class! DAMN (i also just wrote 2 essays so forgive me)! The other day aswell when we were discussing the problem of evil i could've proved someone wrong by using one of your points about god being omnipotent but i couldn't remember then either! *shakes fist*
-
This Burrito convo reminds me of something we went over in Philosophy the other day. You'll have to bear with me, because I wasn't paying much attention.
The philosopher (like I said, I wasn't paying attention that well, and since I don't have my notebook with me, that will have to do) said that the true definition of God was something that was omnipotent--with nothing stronger than God.
He then said that people arguing against the existence of God said that God existed only in the understanding, not in reality. He used Ruductio (sp?) Ad Absurdum to refute this claim. RAA proves a theory by proving that theories opposite is false.
1. God exists only in the understanding.
2. A God in Reality is of course more powerful than a God in the understanding.
3. If God is omnipotent and there is nothing stronger than God, and a God of Reality is more powerful than a God in the understanding, a God in the understanding is not really a God.
4. God does not exist in the understanding, but in the reality.
Do I buy it? No. To me it commits circular reasoning. For #3 or #4 to be true, a God in Reality has to exist--and I don't think you can prove that just by proving God doesn't exist in the understanding. *shrug*.
What proof do I have? None. I have my faith. Take it or leave it.
-
I wish i could've written that better, because i cannot for the life of me remember what was said in my philosophy class! DAMN (i also just wrote 2 essays so forgive me)! The other day aswell when we were discussing the problem of evil i could've proved someone wrong by using one of your points about god being omnipotent but i couldn't remember then either! *shakes fist*
lol
Never forget my points! They will serve you well..... even the ones you disagree with can be used to anticipate what someone else might say in an argument.
You could always print out this thread and take it to school with you :wink:
-
1. God exists only in the understanding.
2. A God in Reality is of course more powerful than a God in the understanding.
3. If God is omnipotent and there is nothing stronger than God, and a God of Reality is more powerful than a God in the understanding, a God in the understanding is not really a God.
4. God does not exist in the understanding, but in the reality.
Thank you Rene Descarte :wink:
"existence is a perfection, and as God is described as the most perfect being. It follows that God must exist."
Yeah, that logic has long since been disproven and discounted. Plus, Descarte was doing his thing long before science (namely, Darwin) came along with the theory of evolution... so he operated under some bad misconceptions.
-
I wish i could've written that better, because i cannot for the life of me remember what was said in my philosophy class! DAMN (i also just wrote 2 essays so forgive me)! The other day aswell when we were discussing the problem of evil i could've proved someone wrong by using one of your points about god being omnipotent but i couldn't remember then either! *shakes fist*
lol
Never forget my points! They will serve you well..... even the ones you disagree with can be used to anticipate what someone else might say in an argument.
You could always print out this thread and take it to school with you :wink:
yeah, that would make me 'too cool for school' (oh dear, me and my chums are obsessed with that phrase at the moment- SO funny)
Oh and i was trying really hard to read that thread you linked too but i am beginning to doubt my own existence as a result of it. So i stopped. LOL
EDIT: After reading Todd's post i am beyond baffled, my philosophy teacher wants me to do pure philosophy at Oxford or Cambridge- not on your life it it involves that kinda stuff love!
-
My apologies to Descartes for fucking up his thesis.
-
My apologies to Descartes for fucking up his thesis.
Apology accepted Todd. Just don't let it happen again!
Edit
Oh and i was trying really hard to read that thread you linked too but i am beginning to doubt my own existence as a result of it. So i stopped. LOL
Yeah... the conversation got pretty deep as it went. Some really smart people over there. Some really FUNNY people there too.....
-
There might be, but i've never heard it. It sounds like a bad theory though.... sounds like another cop out by the Catholic Church's scholars.
Lesbian!
I'm soooo joshin'. You know I'd never call you that. ;)
No . . . It's just that . . . :( If you had a needle heated at the same temperature as the very middle (core? does the sun have a core?) of the sun, it would be hot enough to burn OUT everything within a 60-mile radius. So . . . If God wanted to make a burrito too hot for Him, if would definitely kill all of us so I don't think He exactly wants us to die. Being that it took, He knows how many years for there to be - How many people are on Earth - 2 billion? I'm such a psycho. Anyway, 'cause it took that long for the first hundred or whatever people He created to reproduce (or the apes to evolve or whatever you evolutionists say).
Back on the burritos! :twisted:
Sorry this is sooooo, like, not even relevent (vant?) anymore . . . I just had to . . . yeah.
You know, I think Andrew's brother told me that thing about the needle's heat killing everybody, one morning. Otherwise I'm just being the dillusion retard I normally am.
-
How can some people be rich, smart, "cool", good looking, and all the good stuff, when there are mentally and physically ill people who live, but don't get to live life?
[D]
I can speak on this as I'm one of the physically ill. Just because I don't live your life the way you do doesn't mean I don't live life. It's just that this is my life.
People constantly say to me how they think I'm so strong for dealing with what I do but they don't understand that this is my reality. I'm not strong, I'm just living with what's been given me.
On the topic of religion, I'm a strange person because I believe in God but I'm totally against organized religion.
God obviously eats burritoes, what do you think caused the brush fires here in California? LMAO
-
No, the whole conversation didn't go over my head. haha My aurgument makes perfect sense. My aurgument is I could even make a burrito to hot for God to eat, lol. Because if I heated it enough it would not be a burrito anymore. But before you go on and on about how I can't see the point of the conversation, I'd like to point out that my philosophy, now and in the past, seems to follow a pattern. If you hadn't noticed.
My point is no burrito exists that god could not eat, because god is omnipotent. Any burrito that god could not eat could not exist. The physical laws of nature reflex this because a burrito after being heated to a certain point ceases to exist. Everything in nature reflexes god's will, so don't go on with your nonsense about, "IF God wanted." Everything in nature ceases to exist at some point or another. So there is nothing god could not do within the realm of nature.
You contradict yourself multiple times in your own post. God cannot be both omnipotent AND Limited by the realm of nature. Pick on. You sound terribly confused about your own beliefs. If an omnipotent God wanted to make a burrito 8 billion degrees hot but have it STILL BE A BURRITO HE COULD.
So your God is weak and pathetic because he can't even break the rules of nature? Then you don't belong in this dicussion because your "god" is not THE "God" that we are discussing.
Everything in nature doesn't HAVE to cease to exist at some point or another. Not if God doesn't want it to. Or are you making God weak again?
Tylor, you are too analytical minded for this conversation because you aren't following the philisophy behind it. Leave while you still have some dignity intact.
*waits for you abusive rambling*
Masochist much? If you knew the abuse was coming, why bring it on yourself?
No that is not what I was implying. Your words are a contradiction. Mine are not.
God is capable of undermining his own authority. Untill he does he remains omnipotent. Creating a burrito he could not eat or a stone he could not lift would be undermining his authority. God would no longer be omnipotent. But at anytime after that he could abolish the stone or burrito and be omnipotent again. The fact that god could be omnipotent or not at will means he never lost his status in the first place, because he always had control of it.
Tylor, you are too analytical minded for this conversation because you aren't following the philisophy behind it.
You're catching on.
-
No . . . It's just that . . . :( If you had a needle heated at the same temperature as the very middle (core? does the sun have a core?) of the sun, it would be hot enough to burn OUT everything within a 60-mile radius.
Yes, the sun does have a core. Care to provide some evidence for your claim? What you are telling me about the needle makes no sense according to the physics that I know.
-
Isn't there a theory, that if we understood the way in which God works then we would be halfway to becoming him? In which case we can never understand him, because if we could- that would make us capable of doing the things he does. That would not require faith anymore- that would not make him God.
I'm not saying this is my view at all, but it has been posed. Am i right? I know there are a LOT of flaws to it, just saying it might answer that question.
We will never fully understand God, but he wants us to understand him as much as possible. It's kinda hard to understand because we're only humans and he is God. It confuses me as well. It's too much for our simple minds to comprehend when it comes to how it all works. I believe we can never fully understand God because he is God. As mentioned above, "If we could understand God completely then we would be as the same" but we can't be...
can we? :?:
-
No that is not what I was implying. Your words are a contradiction. Mine are not.
God is capable of undermining his own authority. Untill he does he remains omnipotent. Creating a burrito he could not eat or a stone he could not lift would be undermining his authority. God would no longer be omnipotent. But at anytime after that he could abolish the stone or burrito and be omnipotent again. The fact that god could be omnipotent or not at will means he never lost his status in the first place, because he always had control of it.
Where is the evidence for this POV? If God makes a stone that is soooo heavy he cannot lift it, then he is limited and therefore not all powerful. There is no logcal, scriptural or dogmatic basis for the idea that God can make his own omnipotence vanish at will.
Sure, he can make the stone vanish again..... but he still created an impossibility for himself. He was unable to lift the stone. Therefore, according to you, God IS limited in his ability. If he wants to make a stone that is super heavy he MUST become less than omnipotent afterwards. That is a limit on Gods powers.
Just because the object that demonstrated his weakness vanished doesn't make his weakness vanish.
If I willfully paint myself Red, and I have the power to change my self back to my normal color at will, does that mean I'm not actually red?
The God you are describing is not the western God as described in the bible and christian dogma.
-
Lesbian!
I might be.
When I went on Amazon last month it recomended the following Artists' CD's to me....(this is NOT a joke)
Tori Amos
Indigo Girls
Tatu
Fiona Apple
AND, I do like women :wink:
You might have heard my brother say something about the core of the sun thingie. I have no idea. I can only listen to him from about 7:30 till 8:15 cause that's when I am getting ready for work. So they say a lot of stuff I don't hear.....
-
If we assume God is the creator of all things, and God chooses not to have weaknesses then we can assume those weaknesses do not exist.
If we assume that God is omnipotent, and to be omnipotent is not to create a rock he cannot lift, or a burrito hot enough he can not eat, then we can also assume he has done neither.
But he is not bound by not being able to create such things, since he could, being omnipotent.
Since God is all knowing, he probably knows this, and simply chooses not to, and therefore remains Omnipotent. Just because God knows this, does not mean it exists, since he has not created them.
tylor
-
If we assume God is the creator of all things, and God chooses not to have weaknesses then we can assume those weaknesses do not exist.
If we assume that God is omnipotent, and to be omnipotent is not to create a rock he cannot lift, or a burrito hot enough he can not eat, then we can also assume he has done neither.
But he is not bound by not being able to create such things, since he could, being omnipotent.
Since God is all knowing, he probably knows this, and simply chooses not to, and therefore remains Omnipotent. Just because God knows this, does not mean it exists, since he has not created them.
tylor
Sounds like the Kevin Smith theory of religion. If God does something to prove himself wrong, then God ceases to be God and all of the universe collapses in on itself.
Basically, you eliminate the logical impossibilities by saying that God wouldn't CHOOSE to do something that would demonstrate his own weakness.
But that's not the question. The question is, COULD HE. And if the answer is YES (as you seem to suggest) then God is not the Western God.
You are talking yourself in a circle Tylor. While I understand your theory, it doesn't jive with the western philosophy and therefore isn't really applicable to the way the conversation started.
-
If we assume God is the creator of all things, and God chooses not to have weaknesses then we can assume those weaknesses do not exist.
If we assume that God is omnipotent, and to be omnipotent is not to create a rock he cannot lift, or a burrito hot enough he can not eat, then we can also assume he has done neither.
But he is not bound by not being able to create such things, since he could, being omnipotent.
Since God is all knowing, he probably knows this, and simply chooses not to, and therefore remains Omnipotent. Just because God knows this, does not mean it exists, since he has not created them.
tylor
Sounds like the Kevin Smith theory of religion. If God does something to prove himself wrong, then God ceases to be God and all of the universe collapses in on itself.
Basically, you eliminate the logical impossibilities by saying that God wouldn't CHOOSE to do something that would demonstrate his own weakness.
But that's not the question. The question is, COULD HE. And if the answer is YES (as you seem to suggest) then God is not the Western God.
You are talking yourself in a circle Tylor. While I understand your theory, it doesn't jive with the western philosophy and therefore isn't really applicable to the way the conversation started.
point taken.
tylor
-
all this debating stuff is wrong....its not good...and please think before you say something...
-
all this debating stuff is wrong....its not good...and please think before you say something...
May i ask why you think that? "A life unexamined is not a life worth living"
or sth like that...lol. What would you rather do? Not question ourselves? Not question others?
-
all this debating stuff is wrong....its not good...and please think before you say something...
Think about it this way jen:
I'm an atheist and don't believe in God. I had to crack open the bible to search for an example of a scriptal proof(s) that refutes one of his arguments(and still searching so I can refute Grakthis, haha.)
So it can go both ways, good or bad, in your obvious point of view of good or bad.
tylor
-
all this debating stuff is wrong....its not good...and please think before you say something...
May i ask why you think that? "A life unexamined is not a life worth living"
or sth like that...lol. What would you rather do? Not question ourselves? Not question others?
i rather not see this lead to arguements.....lol
-
i rather not see this lead to arguements.....lol
Well. There's a simple solution then. Don't post opinions that people might want to argue about.