Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

What God can and can't do

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are claims made by people of what God can and can't do. I question the basis on what these claims are made. To be more blunt, I suspect its made up bullSh*T to suit their own pre-convinced religious belief (Eg: to make it fit the bible/quran)

For example it is claimed that God can kill or order other people to kill other people. The same people who claim this also might claim God can't lie, or God can't rape or order some one to rape children.

To justify these can and can't of God they might invoke that some things are against Gods essential nature, and God can't violate its essential nature. This doesn't answer the problem because its just pushes the problem one step back. Even if we grant that God can't violate its essential nature, anyone can just assert what is and isn't against Gods essential nature, X is against Y isn't.

So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ? cause if all your got is the assertion, well, one good assertion is as good as the next. One person asserts this about God, one person asserts that, and if you actually gave a rat's a$$ about this stuff such assertions would be insufficient for you right ?

So got something more than just assertions on this ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 4:35:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ?:
Always ones religious scripture. The Bible or Koran.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 4:37:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 4:35:37 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ?:
Always ones religious scripture. The Bible or Koran.

That ain't gonna cut it, I shouldn't have to explain to you why......or do I ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 4:38:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There are claims made by people of what God can and can't do. I question the basis on what these claims are made. To be more blunt, I suspect its made up bullSh*T to suit their own pre-convinced religious belief (Eg: to make it fit the bible/quran)

For example it is claimed that God can kill or order other people to kill other people. The same people who claim this also might claim God can't lie, or God can't rape or order some one to rape children.

To justify these can and can't of God they might invoke that some things are against Gods essential nature, and God can't violate its essential nature. This doesn't answer the problem because its just pushes the problem one step back. Even if we grant that God can't violate its essential nature, anyone can just assert what is and isn't against Gods essential nature, X is against Y isn't.

So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ? cause if all your got is the assertion, well, one good assertion is as good as the next. One person asserts this about God, one person asserts that, and if you actually gave a rat's a$$ about this stuff such assertions would be insufficient for you right ?

So got something more than just assertions on this ?

From what I've heard, his nature is that which we intuitively think is what constitutes a "maximally great being" (ie, morally perfect). From what theists infer qualifies as morally perfect behavior or not, I don't know (aside from, again, intuition). I myself have always thought that among all possible faculties at our disposal, intuition is among the least helpful in discerning truth claims, but that's just me.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 4:40:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 4:38:07 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There are claims made by people of what God can and can't do. I question the basis on what these claims are made. To be more blunt, I suspect its made up bullSh*T to suit their own pre-convinced religious belief (Eg: to make it fit the bible/quran)

For example it is claimed that God can kill or order other people to kill other people. The same people who claim this also might claim God can't lie, or God can't rape or order some one to rape children.

To justify these can and can't of God they might invoke that some things are against Gods essential nature, and God can't violate its essential nature. This doesn't answer the problem because its just pushes the problem one step back. Even if we grant that God can't violate its essential nature, anyone can just assert what is and isn't against Gods essential nature, X is against Y isn't.

So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ? cause if all your got is the assertion, well, one good assertion is as good as the next. One person asserts this about God, one person asserts that, and if you actually gave a rat's a$$ about this stuff such assertions would be insufficient for you right ?

So got something more than just assertions on this ?

From what I've heard, his nature is that which we intuitively think is what constitutes a "maximally great being" (ie, morally perfect). From what theists infer qualifies as morally perfect behavior or not, I don't know (aside from, again, intuition). I myself have always thought that among all possible faculties at our disposal, intuition is among the least helpful in discerning truth claims, but that's just me.

Okey one person asserts maximal being can do xyz, the other says no, can't do xyz, but can do abc......now what ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 4:43:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 4:40:25 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:38:07 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There are claims made by people of what God can and can't do. I question the basis on what these claims are made. To be more blunt, I suspect its made up bullSh*T to suit their own pre-convinced religious belief (Eg: to make it fit the bible/quran)

For example it is claimed that God can kill or order other people to kill other people. The same people who claim this also might claim God can't lie, or God can't rape or order some one to rape children.

To justify these can and can't of God they might invoke that some things are against Gods essential nature, and God can't violate its essential nature. This doesn't answer the problem because its just pushes the problem one step back. Even if we grant that God can't violate its essential nature, anyone can just assert what is and isn't against Gods essential nature, X is against Y isn't.

So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ? cause if all your got is the assertion, well, one good assertion is as good as the next. One person asserts this about God, one person asserts that, and if you actually gave a rat's a$$ about this stuff such assertions would be insufficient for you right ?

So got something more than just assertions on this ?

From what I've heard, his nature is that which we intuitively think is what constitutes a "maximally great being" (ie, morally perfect). From what theists infer qualifies as morally perfect behavior or not, I don't know (aside from, again, intuition). I myself have always thought that among all possible faculties at our disposal, intuition is among the least helpful in discerning truth claims, but that's just me.

Okey one person asserts maximal being can do xyz, the other says no, can't do xyz, but can do abc......now what ?

They either argue futilely or agree to disagree; I don't know, I'm not a theist.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 4:45:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 4:43:47 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:40:25 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:38:07 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There are claims made by people of what God can and can't do. I question the basis on what these claims are made. To be more blunt, I suspect its made up bullSh*T to suit their own pre-convinced religious belief (Eg: to make it fit the bible/quran)

For example it is claimed that God can kill or order other people to kill other people. The same people who claim this also might claim God can't lie, or God can't rape or order some one to rape children.

To justify these can and can't of God they might invoke that some things are against Gods essential nature, and God can't violate its essential nature. This doesn't answer the problem because its just pushes the problem one step back. Even if we grant that God can't violate its essential nature, anyone can just assert what is and isn't against Gods essential nature, X is against Y isn't.

So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ? cause if all your got is the assertion, well, one good assertion is as good as the next. One person asserts this about God, one person asserts that, and if you actually gave a rat's a$$ about this stuff such assertions would be insufficient for you right ?

So got something more than just assertions on this ?

From what I've heard, his nature is that which we intuitively think is what constitutes a "maximally great being" (ie, morally perfect). From what theists infer qualifies as morally perfect behavior or not, I don't know (aside from, again, intuition). I myself have always thought that among all possible faculties at our disposal, intuition is among the least helpful in discerning truth claims, but that's just me.

Okey one person asserts maximal being can do xyz, the other says no, can't do xyz, but can do abc......now what ?

They either argue futilely or agree to disagree; I don't know, I'm not a theist.

You give up to easily...try harder :)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 4:49:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 4:45:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:43:47 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:40:25 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:38:07 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There are claims made by people of what God can and can't do. I question the basis on what these claims are made. To be more blunt, I suspect its made up bullSh*T to suit their own pre-convinced religious belief (Eg: to make it fit the bible/quran)

For example it is claimed that God can kill or order other people to kill other people. The same people who claim this also might claim God can't lie, or God can't rape or order some one to rape children.

To justify these can and can't of God they might invoke that some things are against Gods essential nature, and God can't violate its essential nature. This doesn't answer the problem because its just pushes the problem one step back. Even if we grant that God can't violate its essential nature, anyone can just assert what is and isn't against Gods essential nature, X is against Y isn't.

So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ? cause if all your got is the assertion, well, one good assertion is as good as the next. One person asserts this about God, one person asserts that, and if you actually gave a rat's a$$ about this stuff such assertions would be insufficient for you right ?

So got something more than just assertions on this ?

From what I've heard, his nature is that which we intuitively think is what constitutes a "maximally great being" (ie, morally perfect). From what theists infer qualifies as morally perfect behavior or not, I don't know (aside from, again, intuition). I myself have always thought that among all possible faculties at our disposal, intuition is among the least helpful in discerning truth claims, but that's just me.

Okey one person asserts maximal being can do xyz, the other says no, can't do xyz, but can do abc......now what ?

They either argue futilely or agree to disagree; I don't know, I'm not a theist.

You give up to easily...try harder :)

I feel like this issue leaves no correct answer for the theist, so I'd rather not put words in the mouths of those whom disagree (ie, insult or strawman). I'd much rather wait to hear the reasoning of someone who actually believes the properties of a "maximally great being" can be known.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 12:11:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There are claims made by people of what God can and can't do. I question the basis on what these claims are made. To be more blunt, I suspect its made up bullSh*T to suit their own pre-convinced religious belief (Eg: to make it fit the bible/quran)

Since the Bible, and His creation, is all we have to go on then any claims about God should fit within those things. I doubt that we can know the full extent of God's ability. If there are any limitations to His ability, we're reduced to speculation, such as saying that it's logically impossible to expect God to create a square circle.

For example it is claimed that God can kill or order other people to kill other people. The same people who claim this also might claim God can't lie, or God can't rape or order some one to rape children.

To justify these can and can't of God they might invoke that some things are against Gods essential nature, and God can't violate its essential nature. This doesn't answer the problem because its just pushes the problem one step back. Even if we grant that God can't violate its essential nature, anyone can just assert what is and isn't against Gods essential nature, X is against Y isn't.

Ok?? Not liking the answer doesn't make it wrong.

So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ? cause if all your got is the assertion, well, one good assertion is as good as the next. One person asserts this about God, one person asserts that, and if you actually gave a rat's a$$ about this stuff such assertions would be insufficient for you right ?

So got something more than just assertions on this ?

If God were so easy to figure out, and man could give you every answer you wanted, wouldn't you question if such a being were actually worthy of being called a God??

This is an "atheism of the gaps" argument...lol
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 12:20:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 4:37:09 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:35:37 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ?:
Always ones religious scripture. The Bible or Koran.

That ain't gonna cut it, I shouldn't have to explain to you why......or do I ?:

The Bible, Yes!
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 12:59:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 4:37:09 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:35:37 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ?:
Always ones religious scripture. The Bible or Koran.

That ain't gonna cut it, I shouldn't have to explain to you why......or do I ?


It does for us.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 7:17:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 12:11:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/14/2013 4:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There are claims made by people of what God can and can't do. I question the basis on what these claims are made. To be more blunt, I suspect its made up bullSh*T to suit their own pre-convinced religious belief (Eg: to make it fit the bible/quran)

Since the Bible, and His creation, is all we have to go on then any claims about God should fit within those things. I doubt that we can know the full extent of God's ability. If there are any limitations to His ability, we're reduced to speculation, such as saying that it's logically impossible to expect God to create a square circle.

For example it is claimed that God can kill or order other people to kill other people. The same people who claim this also might claim God can't lie, or God can't rape or order some one to rape children.

To justify these can and can't of God they might invoke that some things are against Gods essential nature, and God can't violate its essential nature. This doesn't answer the problem because its just pushes the problem one step back. Even if we grant that God can't violate its essential nature, anyone can just assert what is and isn't against Gods essential nature, X is against Y isn't.

Ok?? Not liking the answer doesn't make it wrong.


So how are you determining what is and isn't against Gods essential nature ? cause if all your got is the assertion, well, one good assertion is as good as the next. One person asserts this about God, one person asserts that, and if you actually gave a rat's a$$ about this stuff such assertions would be insufficient for you right ?

So got something more than just assertions on this ?

You got something more that just assertions on this ?

If God were so easy to figure out, and man could give you every answer you wanted, wouldn't you question if such a being were actually worthy of being called a God??


This is an "atheism of the gaps" argument...lol

It's easy to avoid the issue and just set up easy strawman to attack for yourself isn't it medic ? Good for you buddy, good for you.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 9:37:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Supposedly "God" can't break his own "word".

This is so that when non-believers go to hell (not being around "God" hurts, apparently), God really doesn't want it to happen. But he gave his word that spirits can't just "die" and that when they're away from his "light" it hurts, a lot.

You'd have thought he'd have known the pain he'd create when he gave his word on that, but since he's always justified, I guess he doesn't have to even care.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!