davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Why?then god cant be loving I suppose.
Why?then god cant be loving I suppose.
god makes a large mountain size weightNo, I already told you that omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible. If you want to lie about it, that's on you.
No, a feature that defines what a God is, like omnipotence, cannot be voluntarily abdicated without contradicting its existence as a God. Pronouncing temporary impotence does not mean the God cannot lift it, only that it will not. It's choice does not inherently limit its ability, and genuinely giving up that ability would make it impossible to regain, as the non-omnipotent cannot grant omnipotence.god makes a large mountain size weight
Then pronounced - for the moments I am touching the weight I have no strength. As soon as I release my touch from the weight I have my strength back
Presto - god made a weight he cannot lift
So a god who can do anything - cannot step down for two minutes?No, a feature that defines what a God is, like omnipotence, cannot be voluntarily abdicated without contradicting its existence as a God. Pronouncing temporary impotence does not mean the God cannot lift it, only that it will not. It's choice does not inherently limit its ability, and genuinely giving up that ability would make it impossible to regain, as the non-omnipotent cannot grant omnipotence.
No, that's just your naive idea of "anything" including the logically contradictory. If you think the logically contradictory can occur, you've already lost the argument.So a god who can do anything - cannot step down for two minutes?
Oops there goes can do anything
Do you think God is an ape?No, a feature that defines what a God is, like omnipotence, cannot be voluntarily abdicated without contradicting its existence as a God. Pronouncing temporary impotence does not mean the God cannot lift it, only that it will not. It's choice does not inherently limit its ability, and genuinely giving up that ability would make it impossible to regain, as the non-omnipotent cannot grant omnipotence.
Why can't creating a weight you can't lift be a bad thing? It's a good thing. He created you but he can't beat you at video games.No, a feature that defines what a God is, like omnipotence, cannot be voluntarily abdicated without contradicting its existence as a God. Pronouncing temporary impotence does not mean the God cannot lift it, only that it will not. It's choice does not inherently limit its ability, and genuinely giving up that ability would make it impossible to regain, as the non-omnipotent cannot grant omnipotence.
Again, there's a big difference between can't and won't.Why can't creating a weight you can't lift be a bad thing? It's a good thing. He created you but he can't beat you at video games.
No there isn't. What "God" are you talking about?Again, there's a big difference between can't and won't.
Are you really that obtuse? There obviously is a difference between you choosing to lift a watermelon and being unable to lift a house. Unless a God (any God defined as inherently omnipotent) irrevocably gives up its omnipotence, any inability to do the logically possible is simply a choice. If you're this clueless about the long history of debate about omnipotence, maybe you should bone up on it before wading into such discussions.No there isn't. What "God" are you talking about?
OKNo, that's just your naive idea of "anything" including the logically contradictory. If you think the logically contradictory can occur, you've already lost the argument.
According to Alan Guth's cosmological inflation, the universe did come from nothing, or very very little (due to the uncertainty principle), which he called "the ultimate free lunch". So no, science does not unequivocally say nothing is not possible. Albeit many scientists find the idea distasteful enough to invent infinite but unevidenced universes trying to explain it away.OK
So omnipotent does not include doing stuff which is is logically contradictory (ie logically contradictory is excluded from anything)
Lets consider the Big Bang from two points of view
Science - Big Bang occurred and the Universe was created
Religion - god made the Universe in 6 days (reasonable for a omnipotent being? Could it be done in 1 second? Just asking)
Science - A state of NOTHING is not possible. To me this seems strange as I would have thought NOTHING would have been the default. Hence stuff exist and has always been the case
Religion - god has always existed
The difference between the two, in my view, while Science states stuff has always existed, Religion ups the ante and imbues the stuff with anthropomorphic properties
Explained above. No contradiction.Science - Universe runs following unbreakable laws of physics which (disputed) follows cause and effect
Religion - frequently uses cause and effect (Universe must have had a cause, and the cause was god). And then we are back to - who caused god? oh he always existed
Logically contradictory or not?
If yes - bye bye god
If no back to - where did stuff come from?
I hear the contradiction in how you describe the science. You went from "A state of NOTHING is not possible" to "stuff is continuously being produced from nothing". The latter is true, as virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time, due to the same uncertainty principle thought to cause the Big Bang.Science - back to stuff is continuously being produced from nothing. Or at least from energy fields
Religion - back to made in 6 days (did I mention anthropomorphism?) Not saying ONLY god was in existence, there could have been stuff laying around, just not mentioned in the good book
But if no stuff laying around, god produced stuff from nothing???
Do I hear logically contradiction?
Correct the mis mis-quotes please if you expect a responseAccording to Alan Guth's cosmological inflation, the universe did come from nothing, or very very little (due to the uncertainty principle), which he called "the ultimate free lunch". So no, science does not unequivocally say nothing is not possible. Albeit many scientists find the idea distasteful enough to invent infinite but unevidenced universes trying to explain it away.
Nothing being the default is more probably, which is why a crucial question in philosophy and cosmology/cosmogony is why is there something rather than nothing. If true, it's trivial that nothing has always "existed", as it still exists as a concept of absence/potential. A God being the ultimate source for all potential would seem to align with that nothing.
How people personify a God to relate to it is immaterial. That's moving from debating theism to debating a particular religion.
Explained above. No contradiction.
I hear the contradiction in how you describe the science. You went from "A state of NOTHING is not possible" to "stuff is continuously being produced from nothing". The latter is true, as virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time, due to the same uncertainty principle thought to cause the Big Bang.
Yes, both religion and science (some scientists anyway) claim the universe came from nothing.
Still don't hear any logical contradictions. Are you sure you understand what a logical contradiction is? It's not just whatever sounds odd to you.
I don't expect a coherent response.Correct the mis mis-quotes please if you expect a response
You think Zeus couldn't create a rock he couldn't lift?Are you really that obtuse? There obviously is a difference between you choosing to lift a watermelon and being unable to lift a house. Unless a God (any God defined as inherently omnipotent) irrevocably gives up its omnipotence, any inability to do the logically possible is simply a choice. If you're this clueless about the long history of debate about omnipotence, maybe you should bone up on it before wading into such discussions.
Oh I was soooo trying to please youI don't expect a coherent response.
No, I already told you that omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible. If you want to lie about it, that's on you.
then god cant be loving I suppose.
No. It really does mean unlimited - the power to do anything.omnipotent can mean having either:
a: unlimited
or
b: very great
power.
No. It really does mean unlimited.