JonathanChance

What about Homer Simpson's great question?

"Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?"

Volker.Doormann

Both.

Volker

ex-xian

Wow, ok I was half-asleep when I wrote this. Let me rephrase everything so it will be at least partially coherent. What I meant to say was:

Thomistic as in Thomas Aquinas. His theology pretty much describes what it's about for the catholics. I assumed that you guys kept that, since it was still a pretty good theology when the king of england wanted a divorce and the church split.

Oh, and if rational discourse about god is impossible, you woundn't even have enough information to begin questioning. Am if miraculously did understand something, it would be gobbledygook. You have things existing and not existing, you have the law of the excluded middle broken, probablility stops working, so your car quantum mechanically "tunnel" into your garage. All you electrons take a trip to china leaving also in violation of probablity.

The point is, if rational discourse about god is impossible, but god still exists, there is no way to be sure about anything.

ex-xian

How is this a good argument against omnipotence?

Volker.Doormann

Because this question expose the contradiction which is inherent with omni_potence. The fallacy using this term seriously is based on the ignorance of the natural order of truth, assuming for wrong, that untruth could be changed to truth by power. But if this would be true, than there would be no order of truth, and each seeking for truth would be absurd.

ex-xian

No, this is an atheist strawman. Classical xianity holds that omnipotence is defined as the ability to do the logically possible, but not the logically impossible. The more sophisticated theists even argue that since god is infinite, rational predication is only possible in negative terms.

Volker.Doormann

Christianity claims that Jesus is ascended physically in a spiritual heaven. But the physical nature is different to the spiritual nature. No one can measure the physical density of a spiritual seven. This proves it wrong, that Christianity respects logic. The shown inherent contradiction in the term omni_potence by logical arguments can be discussed as valid or as invalid. You say ‘No’ to my arguments, but you do not argue where there is a contradiction in my arguments. A strawmen is a strawmen, but no valid logical argument that proves my logic false. You must show, why an omni_potence is valid in the logical space, if you say ‘No’ to my arguments; but you have not. Your ‘No’ is simple a rejection of logical arguments, as it is known from Christianity. Yes or yes?

ex-xian

Uh..no. And I say that b/c your argument is based on a false premise, ie, that xians knowlingly and willingly eschew the rules of logic. Go read the historical xian writers, not the Joe Blow on the local idiot xian net forum.

fatherphil

can you have faith in something and at the same time have proof as well?

ex-xian

My personal opinion (and, I believe, the factual one) is no, but the opinion of historical xianity is yes.