Ion

The existence of Jesus, it's been done before.

My point is that you are using preaching in this discussion, you are not using arguments from proven human knowledge.

Automaton

And you continue to evade and ignore the substantive response I made to your point I made in my original post on this thread. I fear responding to you will only lead to more obfuscatory tactics on your part, but anyway. Your grasp of the most basic logic principles is appauling. At time time t1 where God is NOT omnipotent, under no circumstances can that God also BE omnipotent. This is one of the most basic rule of logics, nothing can be both A and ~A. If omnipotence can lead to possible states of affairs in which omnipotence is negated, then omnipotence must itself be incoherent, because omnipotence means unlimited power and ability under alll and any circumstances and thus any entity defined as omnipotent (such as God) would be logically impossible and thuis necessarily nonexistent.

HRG

You might also ask the following questions:

"Is there something as omnipotence at time t - and does it include the ability to make oneself irreversibly non-omnipotent for all future times ?"

"Does omnipotence at time t1 include the ability to prevent oneself from renouncing omnipotence at all future times t (in the sense of the 1st question)?"

Etc.

Questions like those have made me suspect that omnipotence as a concept is either ill-defined or inconsistent.

Regards,
HRG.

post-it

Your argument fails in light of what scripture is stating. Omnipotent was a translation from the Greek word "Pantokra'toor". The translation is closer to a King that Rules over all. Under Strong's definition it is "the Almighty". Man chose to make it greater in meaning when some translations changed it to omnipotent.

If you choose to define the meaning in a way it was not originally meant to be used, that is up to you. But the sentence in Rev 19:6 is using it as a complement or worship attitude, not a factual absolute attribute of God.

Automaton

So God is not really all-powerful, just a pretty powerful guy? If God is finitely powerful, then how powerful is he? Is he just the strongest guy in the world, or does he have power over the physical universe or what? Your scripture seems a little overly ambiguous for a "perfect" text.

Dr Rick

These are just ad hoc assertions devoid of reason or evidence that contradict what is written in the Bible.

The Bible is quite explicit and readily refutes post-it's explanations:

Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."


Mark 10:27
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

Luke 1:37
"For nothing is impossible with God."

Luke 18:27
Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."

post-it has yet to provide any evidence from gospel or scripture to support his claim that "We see God limit his power and other attributes as he comes to earth as Jesus or when God grants man free will"

The one verse referenced by him/her says nothing about God's omnipotence or his limitations:

Revelation 19:6
"Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: 'Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns.'"


Rick

eh

It's funny how the concept of a round square has come up. Jehovah is often called a circle square, because he is a walking contradiction that could not possibly exist in the real world. There was a christian childrens show on TV in the 70's, which was named: Circle Square.

Ironic, eh?

Ion

This is giving theists a very kind chance:
If theists could first provide evidence from gospel or scripture to support the claim that "We see God limit his power and other attributes as he comes to earth as Jesus or when God grants man free will", then that would make the Bible a more consistent text within itself;
internal contradictions in other places in the Bible are still problematic, though.

I am a little more demanding with theists after this first step is thoroughly done:
I need to see evidence from outside the religion induced by the Bible supporting the claim that "We see God limit his power and other attributes as he comes to earth as Jesus...".

Otherwise, the religions induced by the Bible remain like they are now:
based on an internally incoherent 'divine text' and making empty claims that are uncorroborated by any evidence from the outside.

luvluv

Ion and Dr. Rick:

Who was trying to convince you to become a Christian? Who was trying to get you to believe in the infallibility of the Bible? (I don't even believe that!)

I am simply responding to the rather silly notion that we could dismiss the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being with a triffling effort of our intellect.

I was fully aware that post-it was arguing that God could do the logically impossible. I am also fully aware that this is not the orthodox Chrisitian position but it is possible even within the Christian tradition. The notion that God is limited to the logically possible has been promoted mostly by Christian philosophers but I don't think it would be heretical for a Christian to not hold that position. Just like there are Christians who don't believe in the Trinity I imagine there are Christians who do not believe that God is limited to logical possibilities.

As far as I am aware, omnipotence is not assumed to be a quality of any entity other than God, so what is the use of trotting off those silly references to the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause and the like? It doesn't help you disprove the existence of God.

The bottom line is there is no legitimate reason to limit the God concept to logical possibilities EXCEPT that human minds are limited to logical possibilties, but this fact immediately drags God down to our level where we have no right to assume He operates if He exists. The notion that you can disprove the existence of God through a five line argument is an infantile fantasy. No one is going to tie you down and force you to believe. I don't deny that to some people the notion that God does not exist could seem to be the most reasonable conclusion and I fully admit that those people are being eminently rational in holding that God does not exist. But anyone who thinks they can "prove" that there is no God is simply deluded.

There is no sound argument which disproves the existence of God. Not a single one. There is no sound argument which proves the existence of God. Not a single one. The notion that God's existence could be proven or disproven solely through philsophy was a mistaken undertaking from the outset. The arguments can furnish raw data for one leap of faith or the other, but there is no 100% certainty involved in this question. Both positons are plagued by doubts.

Dr Rick

The existence of evil does not disprove the existence of gods but it contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god like the one of Christianity. A god that doesn't have all three of these characteristics could co-exist with evil, but it is not logically possible for a god with all three characteristics to have allowed/created evil.

The perfect, omni-god of Christianity is a logical contradiction because of the existence of evil. This doesn't mean that a lesser god couldn't exist, but one that loves, knows, and can do all could not.

Rick