Biff the unclean

It is interesting though how they delude themselves into thinking that they are deducing something. As many times as they are shown the concept negating self contradictions of their fantasies it never occurs to them that they are just imaging and not deducing.

Doctor X

But you see . . . if you were clever . . . if you were honest . . . if you were [Insert your virtue here.--Ed] then you would see it all works!!

See! It is all your fault the myth is a myth!!

If only I could market that. . . .

--J.D.

Kruzkal

OmniWhat? OmniDog? OmniPenis? I assume you mean omniscient and omnipotent. Please inform me if otherwise.

Your assertions:
1 - God exists.
2 - God is omniscient.
3 - God is omnipotent.
4 - God created the possibility of all things that are bad, evil, sinful, awful, terrible, etc.

Please provide evidence to prove or at least support assertions 1 to 4.

Restate assertion:
4 - God created the possibility of all events that are characteristically bad, evil, sinful, awful, terrible, etc.

Your assertions:
5 - One's existence is a big event not laden with possibilities.
6 - Assertion 5 is true because it is real. (???)
7 - Fulfilling existence induces possibilities.

What is the definition of a big event? X is true because it is real . What do you mean by fulfilling existence? Please provide evidence to prove or at least support assertions 5 to 7.

No offence but please clarify, or I ain't got a frickin' clue what you're on about.

Revise assertion:
4 - God created the possibility of all events that are characteristically bad, evil, sinful, awful, terrible, etc.

Your assertions:
8 - Omnipotent implies the possiblility to assert events.
9 - Omniscient implies the possibility to know events.

Note it is only a possibility to and not the actual ability to in contrary to common definitions.

This bit is absolute bollox due to your own definitions below.

Both omniscient and omnipotent are constants. Having one less knowledge or ability implies you are not omniscient and/or omnipotent respectively. Omniscient and omnipotent implies no more knowledge or abilities can be gained since you already have it all!

Your concept of omniscient and omnipotent as variables with minimum and maximum bounds is [no word in the dictionary to define such stupidity] . . .

Your definitions:
Omniscient - Can know, does know and have access to all (knowledge).
Omnipotnet - All powerful (e.g. have all abilities). Can prevent self access to selected knowledge.

Your two definitions causes a contradiction. Therefore both cannot be the properties of any given entity at the same time. If you no longer have access to some knowledge (due to omnipotent or otherwise), you are no longer omniscient by definition!

You have shown a total of 9 assertions and 2 definitions so far that requires evidence to prove or at least support!

Yet another assertion:
10 - An omnipotent and omniscient god cannot be absolved of the ultimate responsibility for creating the possibilities which have led to the all the world’s pain, suffering, agony, evil and sin.

So . . . I can lock you in an empty house, place a few mines on the floor, hence creating the possibility of you stepping on a mine. You step on a mine. The mines blow up. You die. I cannot be absolved of the ultimate responsibility for creating the possibility which have led to your death. I created the possibility. You acted them out :banghead:.

Yes it is my fault (that you stepped on a mine and died), but not substantially in the way in which you have argued.

You have managed none of the above . . .

Just as I have shown I am not responsible for your death . . .

Who's your Daddy?
Who's your Daddy?
Do you know who your Daddy is?
Its me!!!
How come I am your Daddy?
Coz I did THIS to your Ma Ma!
You suck . . .
But not as good as your Ma Ma!

to you too! Oh yeah do remember to address your 10 assertions and 2 definitions! Oh almost forget . . . also try to include at least some logical arguments next time!

__________________

Philosophy - Questions that cannot be answered
Religion - Answers that cannot be questioned

Majody

Sophie:

Would not man, woman, child, and tree all just be mere possibilities?

Besides, if God were truly an omniGod, he knew they would catch said diseases, or suffer said pain. Whether or not it was him that sent the Anthrax in the mail or put the nail in the chair, he sat and watched it happen.

Say you are sitting beside a pool, just watching people swim. If an infant crawls past you towards the edge, falls in, then drowns soon after, all the while you sitting there watching it, you may as well have drowned the baby yourself. You didn't throw the baby in, or keep its head underwater, but you did absolutely nothing to prevent its death. In essence, that baby's life was in your hands. To say that you were not responsible (at least to some extent) at all for its death is absurd. This is the same for God. And this is assuming you didn't already know it would happen, like God knows who will catch what diseases, or suffer pain.

Kruzkal: :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

penumbra

Spohie
By modifying or qualifying the assertions, you have changed the very basis of the minister's claims. There was no allegation by him that the terms all powerful or all knowing involved or contained any limits to power or knowledge. He implicitly agreed that "all knowing" meant everything - past, present and future, down to the tiniest detail. Your personal belief system certainly may not include this, but you must be aware that this is what has been and is being taught to the common church attendant day in and day out. It's one of the basic tenets of godhood.

Rational BAC
Again, you modifed the assertions and reduced the claimed status and abilities of God. (You've also thrown cold water on all the prophecies). If God does not, or cannot, know the future, every blessed second of it, then you have introduced an element that is not within his/her/its power and control. And you are close to crossing the line between theism and deism, aren't you?

sophie

OK, ladies and gentlemen, let us start with two concepts :[list=a][*]all knowing[*]all powerful[/list=a]What exactly does all powerful mean. Does omniGOD exhibit all powerfulness with every experience? If we answer yes to this question then we imply omniGOD's all powerful because of the exhibited space time continuum and the embedded physics. If you choose to accept this as a demonstration of omniGOD's all powerfulness then you must accept the restraint omniGOD has choosen to exhibit omniGOD's all powerfulness namely the regular nature classical science exhibits in our daily lives without anomolies.

If you choose to say omniGOD has not exhibited any all powerfulness then you choose to say that the all powerfulness of omniGOD is expectational and not existential.

If you had choosen the existential all powerfulness omniGOD exhibits through existence, you could also choose to say omniGOD has not exhiibited all of omniGOD's power leaving us to believe there is a hidden expectational additional power omniGOD can demonstrate.

Therefore (if you are still with me) what we have to idealise is omniGOD's expectational all powerfulness. This should then leave us with the possibility of any event. If I have offended anyone please say so now.

To retrograde my argument, it is wise to say from this perspective that omniGOD's all powerfulness entails the possibility of any event, within our existence and also without.. Can we all agree, seeing that I think I am being logical.

I will review all knowing in the next post.

sophie

I disagree and I will continue to try to demonstrate what my position contains. (not in this post but in subsequent posts).

On another more sober note, I apologise to penumbra for being so insensitive to his dead family member, which was written in the deleted insult part of my 1st post.

penumbra

Sophie, to put it bluntly, I could give a rusty rat's ass what OmniGod has or has not "exhibited", or what exists outside of man's existence. The assertion by common Christian theists in their daily lives is that God was, is, and always will be all powerful, period. Whether that assertion is true or valid or defensible is also beside the point in the discussion that I related. The point is that if one accepts that and the other assertions as absolute truth, one must also lay the blame for all the bad things at the feet of God. If one does not accept one or more of those assertions, then, fine, God can get off the hook (maybe).

Kruzkal

Please address your 10 assertions from above before you make anymore assertions!

Omnipotent.

Rephrase:
Does omniGod (a omnipotent and omnisient god) exhibit all powerfulness (omnipotent) with every experience (a form of knowledge)?

Good way to ask a question . . .

Erm . . . An omnipotent and omniscient god implies god is all powerful (omnipotent). Great logic :banghead:.

Your assertion:
11 - Exhibited space time continuum and the embedded physics implies god is omnipotent. (See assertion 3 above.)

What do you mean by exhibited? Existence of? Are you trying to imply god is omnipotent because space time continuum and physics exist? Please provide evidence to prove or at least support assertion 11.

No I don't, see above.

See above again . . . An omnipotent and omniscient god implies god is all powerful (omnipotent).

Your assertions:
12 - God exists imply god is not omnipotent.
13 - God is omnipotent but not omnipotent. (???)
14 - Assertion 13 implies god has all the power between not omipotent and omnipotent. (therefore omnipotent again. . .)

This is a direct contradiction. You are saying god is omnipotent. God exists therefore god is not omnipotent. Because God is omnipotent and not omnipotent, god has hidden the powers between omnipotent and not omnipotent. In another word, bollox! Please provide evidence to prove or at least support assertions 12 to 14.

No I am not with you. You talk absolute omniDog feces!

You would have offended the word stupid if anyone calls you that . . .

Damn you just offended the word wise too . . .

OMG you just offended the word logical . . .

Now go back and address your now 14 assertions!

Incase you didn't see it:

Now go back and address your now 14 assertions!

__________________

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity

viscousmemories

Okay, let's.

I assume you meant to end that sentence with a question mark instead of a period. 'What', implies that it is a question. Assuming it is a question, the answer is that 'all powerful' means 'all', as in 'all', and 'powerful', as in 'powerful'. If you need 'all' and 'powerful' defined, check Dictionary.com.

As annoying as it is to try to guess what someone means by a word they made up themselves, I will assume that by 'omniGOD' you mean a god that is omnipotent and omniscient. For ease of discussion you might want to consider limiting yourself to words that are already part of the English language when discussing an issue in that tongue. Now, assuming that I have guessed the meaning of your special word accurately, what do you mean 'with every experience'? Whose 'experience' are you referring to? Did you perhaps mean 'action', or 'occurrence'? Either of those would probably be more fitting, given the fact that your omniGOD could presumably act without anyone else 'experiencing' the action. Precision is another invaluable tool in argumentation, particularly on issues that are as complex as philosophy.

What? Okay, let's say that you meant 'experience' literally back there, and you were asking if your omniGOD's supposed all-powerfulness is exhibited in every human experience. Now you're saying that if we answer yes to that, we imply that your omniGOD is "all powerful because of the exhibited space time continuum and the embedded physics"? Do you even realize that there are no logical connections between those statements? It almost seems as if you are just randomly stringing together complicated verbal constructs to create the appearance of a sophisticated argument, when in fact the most substantial component of your commentary is the poetic surreality of the words you throw together.

Accept what as a demonstration of your omniGOD’s all-powerfulness? You’re referring to a conclusion in a previous paragraph that you never presented, and trying to use it to further an argument you’re not making. I swear I came up with more cogent arguments when I was 13 years old and tripping on LSD.

Sorry to be repetitive, but what? If your omniGOD hasn’t exhibited any all-powerfulness when? Do you have any idea how hard it is to follow an argument that goes nowhere based on a premise that was never introduced?

Riiiiight. So somehow, you have convinced yourself that you have made an effective argument for determining that there are like two kinds of gods or something. Like a god with existential qualities and a god with expectational qualities, right? Well, just so you know, you haven’t. But for the sake of our continued entertainment, let’s pretend you have and see if we can make some sense out of the point you’re trying to make now. Eh, no, let’s not. I don’t even want to try to put that puzzle together. I could guess at what you’re trying to suggest (and probably come pretty close) but it would just be painfully boring.

Sophie, I highly doubt anyone is still with you at this point in your argument. The only reason I am is because I thought I’d give much more careful consideration to one of your posts so I could confirm my suspicion that the point buried in your text doesn’t really exist. You see, for anyone to still be with you, you would have had to start somewhere and be going somewhere.

so now.

Are you looking for agreement to your supposition that your omniGOD could theoretically act outside the sphere of human experience, or that you are being logical? ‘Cause the answer to the former would be, “Duh. Of course”, and the answer to the latter would be, “Are you kidding?”

Oh my GOD, I absolutely cannot wait.

vm