Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wayne Delia · 08-13-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EthnAlln

I claim a fulfilled prophecy!! On another thread I predicted that the meaning of "chewing the cud" would be revised as necessary to cover coprophagia.

Not to derail, but I just got rid of a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses who brought out what they thought was their trump card - "fulfilled prophecies." They don't impress me at all, I told them, because even today we have inspired people giving prophecies that come to pass with amazingly high accuracy, and we don't feel the need to worship them. We call them "Weathermen". (Actually, "meteorologists".)

Quote:

So insects could also be described as "creatures that walk on two legs"? Maybe "creatures that walk on one leg?"

That's an interesting suggestion, to apply the apologetic for questions like "How many women were at the tomb after Jesus's resurrection? One, two, or more than two?" A popular apologetic is that the author who listed only one woman simply left out a description of the other women present in other accounts. So, we could say that an insect crawls upon the ground on four legs is valid - the author just doesn't mention the crawling done by the insect's other two legs. Valid, but incomplete, in a way that makes the Bible authors look plainly stupid.

Quote:

And the sun, moon, and stars were created on the FOURTH day. You mebbe oughta look at that there passage again.... What happened to the light that was created on the first day, I mean after it was no longer needed on the fourth day?

That's easy. From "Sunrise Sermon," a skit on the TV comedy program Second City Television:

"In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was still nothing, but youse could see it."

WMD

Wayne Delia · 08-13-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EthnAlln

This strikes me as clearly metaphorical language, like Peter's "being uncircumcised in heart and ear" (Acts 7:51). Or perhaps ggazoo would like to claim that it is possible to circumcise a heart or an ear? To be fair, he ought to do so, since he cites this phrase as a reason for rejecting the Quran.

ggazoo seems to have abandoned this thread, since he's posted once or twice in different threads after his last post here about five days ago, and I can't say as I blame him - too many difficult questions.

This is a particularly damaging question. He's rejected Islam based on a literal interpretation of a single allegorical sura, but presumably won't do the same for Christianity with more than just a couple of similar allegorical verses from the Bible.

WMD

Cheerful Charlie · 08-13-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Delia

Hang on to your hat; you're about to get royally flamed. To others reading this post, it might be a good idea not to blink, because the original post will be gone in a few hours. And to any moderators, how about giving me a little latitude on this, because it points out a very important infraction.
This was plagiarized from the same reference noted before (rock.html) But let's have a look at what was originally on the web site:

"The atheist distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible. Neither does omnipotence include the ability to fail. By defining omnipotence as requiring one to have the ability to fail, atheists have defined omnipotence as being impossible. Of course, an omnipotent God would never fail."

You changed the beginning of the actual author's sentence from "The atheist distorts..." to "Atheists distorts..." (which, apart from being dishonest, is grammatically incorrect). Apart from that, you left the entire paragraph identical to the original author's work.

WMD

Well, what IS omnipotent anyway?

The bible never uses that word, but shaddai, all powerfil is used 46 times.
We have a bunch of proof texts used to show god is all powerful.
"God does what he pleases".

These claims about god can't do the impossible is from Aquinas of course,
via Anselm, who argued about such things. An out from puzzles Anselm argued.
Can god create a married bachelor?

Anselm:
God is the greatest thing imaginable.
The greatest thing imaginable must have existence or it
isn't the greatest thing imaginable.
Therefore god exists.

The greatest thing imaginable is a god not limited by logic.
That is greater than a thing, a god limited by logic.

A god that is not limited by logic has no excuses for not eliminating evil.
Evil exists so a god that is not limited by evil does not exist.

So the greatest imaginable god cannot exist.

So the next greatest imaginable god must be limited by logic.
and if so that god cannot have created logic. And god cannot
create a universe with logic that so limits him, so god did not
create the entire Universe as claimed.

Aquinas won't help the christians out here.

What is logic and where did it come from? The bible says nothing here to help.

What is logic, is it one thing, many things? Maybe logically, there cannot
be disemboddied beings who act and think, maybe logically the laws of the
universe are all beings who think and act are made of matter and energy
and subject to all laws of physics.

What do we really KNOW about god, logic, and omnipotence?
Nothing christians want to hear.

I can prove an all good god that is not limited by logic cannot
exist so god must be limited by logic which is not omnipotence.
Omnipotence means all powers, the power to override logic
is a problem for god. Why is god limited by logic? Why does god
not create logic? Where does logic come from? How does it limit god?

Maybe logic is all there is, no god and we have physical material
and energy and its logic? I can thus show logic must exist, but not god.

God fades and logic remains.

Cheerful Charlie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.