The, differences ,between ,Christianity and Islam

[GeoffP]

Then you have failed to answer my question how can God who is infinite be a quantity, be a number and have some of His "personality" put into an object of quantity such as a human corpse.

Corpus, not corpse, Chill. There's a difference.

And what exactly is so hard about this? Is your argument that God is "too big" to fit his personality into a human body? Again, this doesn't seem a reasonable argument for an omnipotent being. You and scifes seem to be putting limitations on God here for the sake of theological argument against a belief you don't like.

scifes isn't denying God capabilites and he certainly hasn't described Him, he is simply referring to absolutism and absolutism cannot have any models. And why go as far as saying God is triune when God can simply be said to be immeasurable literally.

If you like. We simply happen to recognize the three major aspects that are apparent to our faith. As for denying God's capabilities: I hate to keep harping on this point, but this is exactly what scifes' argument comes down to: my god is immeasurably powerful and unknowable, but this is somehitng I know He just wouldn't or couldn't do. Best solution in this case: leave the Triune perspective alone on the measure of "reasonability", as this isn't a mortal, natural being we're discussing here. My view is this: I leave everyone's theology to themselves, so long as it's humanitarianally ethical and doesn't interfere with me or mine.

(And one can't morally claim that the religious beliefs of others "harm" one unless they actually do. I get the drift from some of the theists on the forum that they equate such things as apostacy with the dead of a believer, which was bizarre.)

 

[scifes]

G, can god create a rock too heavy for him to carry?

 

[Michael]

Can God learn something new? Can you?

 

[scifes]

and so, since an ignorant person can learn more than a knowledgeable person can, the ignorant are better?

it's not the absurdity of your arguments that irk me michael, but the confidence with which you repeat them over and over that makes me detest and pity you.

do you have short term memory loss michael? otherwise why do you keep repeating your answered arguments?(if we can call them arguments)

 

[GeoffP]

G, can god create a rock too heavy for him to carry?

The conservative answer is that God can create a rock of any size and carry all of them; this, for me, is a tidy wrap-up to the issue of omnipotence.

 

[Michael]

and so, since an ignorant person can learn more than a knowledgeable person can, the ignorant are better?

it's not the absurdity of your arguments that irk me michael, but the confidence with which you repeat them over and over that makes me detest and pity you.

do you have short term memory loss michael? otherwise why do you keep repeating your answered arguments?(if we can call them arguments)

As usual you didn't answer the question. I didn't say a thing about "better". If there is a God, some human's are "better" beings IMO yes. But that's not the questions here is it? Being taught to think illogically your entire life probably makes these otherwise simple questions seem difficult. They are not.

Can God learn something new?
Can you learn something new?

 

[Big Chiller]

You asked this same question before in another thread in this very forum. Can God learn something new? Absolutely impossible. Can you and I learn something new? Absolutely, God is infinite He must be unchanging He changes all else that means we are not unchanging God can always improve us indefinitely or change us and that means we absolutely can learn something new.

 

[AlexG]

Can God learn something new

You can't teach an old goD new tricks.

 

[Michael]

You asked this same question before in another thread in this very forum. Can God learn something new? Absolutely impossible. Can you and I learn something new? Absolutely, God is infinite He must be unchanging He changes all else that means we are not unchanging God can always improve us indefinitely or change us and that means we absolutely can learn something new.

Not everyone agrees there is something that is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for God to do - as that violates the "Omnipotent" clause in Her contract.

Can God forget?

 

[Big Chiller]

Absolute impossibility means the said proposition is utterly void i.e absurd so it's not a question of capabilities at all.

 

[Michael]

Absolute impossibility means the said proposition is utterly void i.e absurd so it's not a question of capabilities at all.

Actually, it is a question of capabilities and you answered it by saying, and I quote: Absolutely impossible.

It is absolutely impossible for your God to learn. Unlike a human, which can learn (some anyway). So, Human's can do things your God can not. Like learn.

How about feel surprise? Can your God be surprised?

 

[Michael]

If it makes it easier to think about these questions, just pretend we're talking about a literary character in StarWars or Harry Potter, or maybe "Q" from StarTrek.

Honestly, if you stop and think about it, it's absolutely no different.

Someone may ask: Does "Q" (from StarTrek) know everything?
Then someone else will say: Well, from StarTrek episode x, we can say that no they can't.
Then someone might say: Oh, but in Startrek book y they did such and such and so I think they can know everything.


etc...



See, at the end of the day, it's the same. Only instead of reading through volumes of StarTrek novels, your fantasy novel is the Qur'an and it's literary protagonists. Instead of being a Trekkie, you're a Muslim. Sadly some people take this stuff just a little too seriously. But, meh.... some people prefer to live in a world of fantasy *shrug* (as that "makes sense" to them)

 

[GeoffP]

The last ones scare me the most. I'm not sure what the big fuzzy thing on the right is mean to represent.

 

[Gremmie]

The pic that gets me, is the Star Trek photo...

The woman and her dog have matching hair.

Kinda freaky...

 

[GeoffP]

That's just wrong.

There's also something to be said for not getting dogs, or pets of any kind.

 

[scifes]

The conservative answer is that God can create a rock of any size and carry all of them; this, for me, is a tidy wrap-up to the issue of omnipotence.

i thought you'd cover your retreat better than that! or even better, i thought you'd give a straight answer. i am kinda disappointed.
the question is a yes or no question G, if you've got a third answer please share, just explain it with better than "other people say such and such".

Can God learn something new?
Can you learn something new?

i can learn something new.
god can't learn something new.

i can die.
god can't die.

i can be filthy.
god can't be filthy.

i can be an idiot.
god can't be an idiot.

i can crap.
god can't crap.

um, should i go on?
yeah that's right, now run along and troll in some other thread repeating your usual junk like always, i'm sure there're some people out there who haven't memorized it by heart yet.

 

[GeoffP]

i thought you'd cover your retreat better than that! or even better, i thought you'd give a straight answer. i am kinda disappointed.

I think you mean "disappointing". No matter. What's wrong with the answer? What's half of infinity? Care to answer any of my other questions? They're right there. Don't retreat.

the question is a yes or no question G, if you've got a third answer please share, just explain it with better than "other people say such and such".

You should put away the crack before it puts you away. I gave you an answer. If you don't like it, tell me why it's wrong. Or answer any of my other questions. Even one.

 

[Big Chiller]

Actually, it is a question of capabilities and you answered it by saying, and I quote: Absolutely impossible.

It is absolutely impossible for your God to learn. Unlike a human, which can learn (some anyway). So, Human's can do things your God can not. Like learn.

How about feel surprise? Can your God be surprised?

You think it's a question of capabilities because finite beings can do them? It's impossible for God to have needs everything we can do is based on our needs, at the most basic we need to be created to exist but God isn't created i.e. it's impossible He shouldn't exist. Everything we do or happens to us also have to be created and since God isn't created it's absurd that God should do these acts Himself.

 

[Michael]

i can learn something new.
god can't learn something new.

What does omnipotent mean?

Christians believe God died in filth on the cross. As a human he would have taken a crap (I'm guessing "He" probably even jerked off - when in Rome :shrug.

So, you say that God can not learn. Well then, as you know so much about God's abilities, you know what God can and what God can not do. It's almost as if God is made up in your mind scifes, and what you're doing is just making up "His" attributes as you go along. Just as any author creates the abilities of their literary creations (such as a "Q" or a "Jedi"). It's not that you have any evidence of what God can and can not do, you just "know" it. Like a child just "knows" what their invisible friend likes and doesn't like.

I wonder: Does your God think scifes?




** You should visit the StarWars -vs- StarTreq thread. People there are just as sure about the power of the DeathStar as YOU are about your God! hahaha... too funny

 

[Michael]

You think it's a question of capabilities because finite beings can do them? It's impossible for God to have needs everything we can do is based on our needs, at the most basic we need to be created to exist but God isn't created i.e. it's impossible He shouldn't exist. Everything we do also have to be created and since God isn't created it's absurd that God should do these acts Himself.

Can God think?
Does God think?

What does it mean to think? Why think? What's the purpose of thought?


Why do you suppose you have a need to refer to a God as a "He"? Why not a She? The Japanese refer to God as a She. And they give "Her" plenty of respect. Hindu have female avatars of God. Why do you suppose your God is a represented in your mind as a "He"?


Wouldn't it be more logical to say "It"?