A Gun is still powerful enough to kill someone, whether it is used or not.
the comparison of power being negated because it isn't used seems pointless.
the comparison of power being negated because it isn't used seems pointless.
Does it? How so?
Then we're getting somewhere.
How do I fail to understand? Where in my posts have I demonstrated a misunderstanding?
You don't want to put a limit on God's abilities, yet you can't show how he can be both omnipotent and omniscient, at least without limiting those terms. :shrug:
Not talking about illusions, but about the reality.
And this is a square-circle... how?
When one accepts that the same person is in three forms simultaneously (father, son and holy-spirit) and is also one, then the apparent death of the physical form of one of them is no longer illogical, because you have set the parameters on which the logic works.
You have yet to do that with the square-circle, and not with omnipotence/omniscience.
I'm not saying you couldn't do it... just that you haven't.
1. Because the concept is of a logical impossibility, and if we use the label for a logical possibility then it no longer refers to the concept of impossibility. :shrug:
2. No.
Not to trick but to highlight logical impossibilities... two things that are incompatible. The concept is of logical impossibility, not of a square-circle per se.
I'm not claiming that I possess definitive answers to some of the age old philosophical questions relating to the ultimate nature of existence. I was simply pointing out that reality is what it is, regardless of any religious ideas that someone like yourself wants to project onto it.
In other words, having a particular definition of God doesn't mean much. All you have is a collection of ideas that ultimately derive from a greater collection of ideas developed over thousands of years, which themselves derive from the more primitive religious ideas that were developed among the small hunter/gatherer groups that were roaming the planet before the neolithic revolution.
That's all you have. Reality, on the other hand, continues to be what it is (whatever that may be).
What a ridiculous question. The only way your personal conception of God can be explained comprehensively, is from your perspective. But that doesn't somehow demonstrate that those ideas don't derive from religious ones. Of course they do. That was my point.
Sorry, pretending that omnipotence and omniscience are concepts that can be considered separately from the being who possesses them is absurd.
Such an abstract exercise is not nearly as useful, or relevant, as dealing directly with the fullness of the hypothetical reality that is being proposed as a true state of affairs.
That does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence are necessarily present as part of some transcendent reality. Try again.
Big Chiller said:Concepts like square circles or absolutely strictly immovable objects are ultimately meaningless because even with many scientific observations we begin to see that even objects at rest are never devoid of motion.
gmilam said:Got to agree. People who resort to "can god make a square circle" or "can god create an object so large that he can't lift it" need to revaluate their objections, as these are meaningless concepts.
Wouldn't that line of argument make God and God's actions subject to, dependent on and hence inferior to logic? Logic would have some kind of existence even prior to God, and logic would define the admissible set of God's possible actions.
That might present problems for theologians who want to say that logic is part of God's creation and that it was established by a divine act of will. It threatens to dethrone God from his seat as reality's ultimate principle.
A Gun is still powerful enough to kill someone, whether it is used or not.
the comparison of power being negated because it isn't used seems pointless.
Which religious ideas would those be?
A definition of God is a great place to start. Unfortunately you don't have definition of God hence the reason you have this materialistic notion of how God came to be. This idea has to be put foreward, if a gross materialist wishes to explain origins, because God is simply out of the question for him.
You are simply substituting a spiritual idea with a material one, nothing more.
Whatever it may be? Yet you think you've outlined reality in your above speil.
Nothing ridiculous about it. You claimed, ''Your conception of God derives from religion.''. Okay? Now please explain to me the religion or religions, which MY concept of God is taken. Otherwise don't make claims, unless you can back them up when asked. Okay?
Will you quit being arogant.
It may be absurd for you, but that doesn't mean it's absurd.
Part of the reason why the discussions get railed before they even begin, is because you think you're right, therefore any contradition is wrong.
Now unless you can show that such an idea can only come about because of the notion of God, you have to accept it as part of the argument levelled against you.
Such an abstract exercise is not nearly as useful, or relevant, as dealing directly with the fullness of the hypothetical reality that is being proposed as a true state of affairs.
Are you saying that the Gods' preceedence of material reality, coupled with the notion that He created the material reality does not demonstrate transcendance?
As someone who often cracks the shits when you feel that people aren't reading your posts properly, perhaps you should take care to avoid committing the same offense.
That's all you have.
Probably. Don't really care what problems it may present for a theologian.Wouldn't that line of argument make God and God's actions subject to, dependent on and hence inferior to logic? Logic would have some kind of existence even prior to God, and logic would define the admissible set of God's possible actions.
That might present problems for theologians who want to say that logic is part of God's creation and that it was established by a divine act of will. It threatens to dethrone God from his seat as reality's ultimate principle.
Given that everything God does, is good, then there is no need for Him to change His mind.
And it is an inconsistency that exists as long as we specifically avoid the issue of the quality of an action.
And I'm pointing out that there is no need for God to change His mind.
"If God can't change His mind, then He is not omnipotent" is in the same group with "If God can't make square circles, then He is not omnipotent" - in both instances, a typically human idea of what omnipotence is is projected into God.
Noah's Ark.Originally Posted by wynn
Given that everything God does, is good, then there is no need for Him to change His mind.
Can't or won't?
big difference..
Cannot - as in "it is impossible to kill you."
"There never was a time when you and God did not exist."
i think i am misunderstanding you, as it is not impossible to kill me,nor have i existed before i existed..
Noah's Ark.
“ Originally Posted by Sarkus
“ But could God act as though He dislikes? don't see why not. ”
Then we're getting somewhere. ”
“ Not talking about illusions, but about the reality.
To be clear: God could act as though He dislikes, but that would still be to His liking.
Do you have any worthy evidence that states otherwise?Do you really believe that you are your body?
Well, accepting a extremely implausible tall tale at face value...What about it?
on the claim that man was so wicked, he would wipe them all out.