Stormy

The little game had to be made by an Atheist who has no real idea of God.

PandaJoe

In other words, a theist didn't do so good...

Stormy

Bit two bullets and took one hit... in their opinion.

copernicus

Other theists have passed with "medal of honor" awards. The game is only about logical consistency of beliefs, and it isn't perfect. What is interesting about it is the people who bit bullets or took hits. It is interesting to see their defense of their interpretations.

philechat

Tercel came out unscathed, and I also came out unscathed while faking a theist. Perhaps it is not discriminated against theists?

fishbulb

I don't find this argument particularly convincing. If you are making a specific claim about a specific being, you must be specific. Using a word whose meaning is vague at best is not an honest or forthright thing to do, especially if you know that many members of your target audience will understand the term in to mean something different from what you mean. By presenting so many alternative and not entirely compatible definitions in the first place, you implicitly acknowledge that the term is problematic.

When you propose all of these possible definitions of omnipotence, I get the feeling that I am being spammed with half-defined concepts in the hope that I will agree that at least one of them is plausible. But I see no reason why I shouldn't just reject each and every definition out of hand unless you can present one that is clear, complete and as unambiguous as possible. If you can't be bothered to offer a more thorough definition, why should I be bothered to even evaluate it to see if it is self-consistent?

Even at that, as long as you are simply dreaming up possible definitions for a word and aren't actually asserting that those definitions apply to anything specific, there is really little point in discussing the matter at all. You presented about half a dozen alternative definitions for the word "omnipotent." You didn't actually suggest that any of those definitions applied to anything, but I do get the impression that you are inviting us to decide which, if any, of those definitions we think makes sense and then apply that definition to God. But this is unwarranted; even if you can create a coherent definition, you give no reason to apply any of those definitions to God or to anything else.

diana

Has it really been that long since I was sarcastic that people no longer expect it of me? Wow. I've been slacking.

I don't think it's funny at all, Albert. I concur with your sentiments on this matter. I also take it quite seriously. My sarcasm and such, like yours, stems from my frustration.

Does Catholicism provide a better definition of "all-powerful"?

d

diana

So you've redefined a word that I always thought mean "all-powerful" to mean "most powerful." Interesting.

Mr. Metcalf is one of our resident philosophers, and he appears to have special interest in finding a coherent working definition of "omnipotence." I've not noticed him using it to "prove" anything. I'm quite surprised you haven't visited his threads and tossed in the definition you find acceptable. It would make for interesting discussion.

This sounds me like you're defining God, essentially, as "The biggest, baddest mo fo on the block" (if you'll pardon the expression).

d

diana

Hm. Does the bible actually use the word "omnipotence"? It doesn't, does it? Is uses this word, from which we draw the idea:

I'd think the first definition is the applicable one in the context of the Christian God. Interestingly, Strong's gives the Hebrew word for "Almighty" as meaning "most powerful."

However, this appears to be inconsistent with Christian doctrine. When Jesus said, in Matt 19:26, that "With God, all things are possible," I doubt he meant "most" things.

d

everlastingtongue

Originally posted by Jamie_L
Yes. I just kept thinking of Greek or Norse "Gods" -- flawed as they were.