Total Posts:332|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

More powerful than God?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 5:13:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 4:50:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:48:15 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

He is the highest singularity. Nothing can exist without Him, so no.
He didn't create the paradigm in which he exists.

He didn't need to, it was empty apart from him though.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 5:19:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 5:13:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:50:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:48:15 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

He is the highest singularity. Nothing can exist without Him, so no.
He didn't create the paradigm in which he exists.

He didn't need to, it was empty apart from him though.
So he didn't create everything and is contingent upon the paradigm in which he exists.
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 5:38:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 5:13:04 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:10:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:07:48 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:06:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:05:48 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:57:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:23:37 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

"One is omnipotent"
"There is something one cannot do"

does not compute

You cannot make something larger than infinite.

If there's something you cannot do, then you are not omnipotent in the first place!

Once again you are looking at God as a being instead of the act of being itself.

Idiot. I never ever said "god". But ok, if "god" can't make himself more than infinite, then there's something he cannot do, so he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence contradicts itself.

lol. - look up the definition of infinite.

There are many things God cannot do - I'll give you a hint: he cannot contradict his own will.

Yeah? I looked up the definition of infinite. And you can actually have numbers greater than infinite. You can have countably infinite and uncountably infinite. You can have the real numbers, the power set of the reals, the power set of the power set of the reals, etc. But you're probably lost already.

If this is the kind of discussion you want then never mind - you are not being intellectually honest.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 5:42:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 5:38:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:13:04 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:10:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:07:48 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:06:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:05:48 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:57:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:23:37 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

"One is omnipotent"
"There is something one cannot do"

does not compute

You cannot make something larger than infinite.

If there's something you cannot do, then you are not omnipotent in the first place!

Once again you are looking at God as a being instead of the act of being itself.

Idiot. I never ever said "god". But ok, if "god" can't make himself more than infinite, then there's something he cannot do, so he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence contradicts itself.

lol. - look up the definition of infinite.

There are many things God cannot do - I'll give you a hint: he cannot contradict his own will.

Yeah? I looked up the definition of infinite. And you can actually have numbers greater than infinite. You can have countably infinite and uncountably infinite. You can have the real numbers, the power set of the reals, the power set of the power set of the reals, etc. But you're probably lost already.

If this is the kind of discussion you want then never mind - you are not being intellectually honest.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 5:44:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 5:42:31 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:38:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:13:04 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:10:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:07:48 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:06:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:05:48 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:57:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:23:37 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

"One is omnipotent"
"There is something one cannot do"

does not compute

You cannot make something larger than infinite.

If there's something you cannot do, then you are not omnipotent in the first place!

Once again you are looking at God as a being instead of the act of being itself.

Idiot. I never ever said "god". But ok, if "god" can't make himself more than infinite, then there's something he cannot do, so he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence contradicts itself.

lol. - look up the definition of infinite.

There are many things God cannot do - I'll give you a hint: he cannot contradict his own will.

Yeah? I looked up the definition of infinite. And you can actually have numbers greater than infinite. You can have countably infinite and uncountably infinite. You can have the real numbers, the power set of the reals, the power set of the power set of the reals, etc. But you're probably lost already.

If this is the kind of discussion you want then never mind - you are not being intellectually honest.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes and those are "numbers", like "beings", and not being itself.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 5:54:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 4:57:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:21:07 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:31:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:15:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

This is the problem with most atheists. God is not a being. God is being itself.

And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

Two things. If God is not a being, why does it speak and act like one in holy Christian writ?

Because we understand God based on our experience. We cannot actually comprehend life in eternity, or the sheer being of God. Our understanding of God is limited by our personal limitations. It is like my dog. He understood us to be some form of super-dog. He interacted and viewed us according to his frame of reference. Likewise our understanding of God is limited by our fallen nature.

So we're just advanced dogs. Good to know how you feel about how your loving God feels about you.

Actually that would be your random evolution theory viewpoint.

Uh, no. There is no conscious volition behind evolutionary processes. It's apparent you do not really understand evolution.

I love when atheists act intentionally obtuse - it completely discredits them to serious readers.

I hate it when theists try to bulljive people with answers that make zero sense.

Second, the very concept of 'omnipotence' is incoherent. Questions like 'Can God create a rock so big that he could not lift it?' demonstrate this. An omnipotent being should be able to do anything yet he is limited by his own omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do whatsoever he desires. All of nature operates according to his will.

Yet his is limited by that omnipotence thus is not omnipotent after all. It's an incoherent concept. You did not really demonstrate otherwise here.

Everything that exists is an act of pure will on the part of God. Matter being finite (by design) is always inferior to the spiritual.

And there it is. Your are implicitly asserting the existence of a realm that you cannot in any way demonstrate or evidence. Once you do that you've left the realm of reality and stepped into baseless assertion. Show me some actual evidence of this 'spirit' you claim exists and you might have an argument.

All of time and space is in the present to God. Something greater than the source is logically impossible. Something more perfect that perfect makes no sense.

You say we can't understand God yet you claim to know all about him. That's self-contradictory and, in my opinion, just your own desires expressed as fact.

Now to give a snide answer to a non-serious question. Jesus was God, he fell numerous times under the weight of the cross. If a large piece of wood is too heavy then there would be rocks he could not lift. And yet God can do anything by his will alone. So there were rocks that he both simultaneously could and could not lift.

Sophistry. Can and cannot are mutually exclusive. In your story your God chose to limit himself to what a human body was capable of and not utilize his power. That does not demonstrate that he could have easily carried the cross and not died from being tormented. Totally different circumstances.

No duh. It is a dumb question to begin with.

It wasn't really a question, if you'd read the entire paragraph. I used that particular question to express the incoherence of the concept of omnipotence. Apparently that went over your head as well.
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:07:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

By what measure do you compare 'power'?
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:07:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 5:54:11 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:57:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:21:07 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:31:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:15:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

This is the problem with most atheists. God is not a being. God is being itself.

And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

Two things. If God is not a being, why does it speak and act like one in holy Christian writ?

Because we understand God based on our experience. We cannot actually comprehend life in eternity, or the sheer being of God. Our understanding of God is limited by our personal limitations. It is like my dog. He understood us to be some form of super-dog. He interacted and viewed us according to his frame of reference. Likewise our understanding of God is limited by our fallen nature.

So we're just advanced dogs. Good to know how you feel about how your loving God feels about you.

Actually that would be your random evolution theory viewpoint.

Uh, no. There is no conscious volition behind evolutionary processes. It's apparent you do not really understand evolution.

No, I do. I never claimed any conscious volition behind your view of evolution. It is random because it requires random mutations to create improvements/adaptations that will get passed on.

I love when atheists act intentionally obtuse - it completely discredits them to serious readers.

I hate it when theists try to bulljive people with answers that make zero sense.

You understood that the analogy was just a useful analogy and then proceeded to say that God views us like dogs, when it had nothing to do with the analogy being made. Intentionally obtuse.

Second, the very concept of 'omnipotence' is incoherent. Questions like 'Can God create a rock so big that he could not lift it?' demonstrate this. An omnipotent being should be able to do anything yet he is limited by his own omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do whatsoever he desires. All of nature operates according to his will.

Yet his is limited by that omnipotence thus is not omnipotent after all. It's an incoherent concept. You did not really demonstrate otherwise here.

Everything that exists is an act of pure will on the part of God. Matter being finite (by design) is always inferior to the spiritual.

And there it is. Your are implicitly asserting the existence of a realm that you cannot in any way demonstrate or evidence. Once you do that you've left the realm of reality and stepped into baseless assertion. Show me some actual evidence of this 'spirit' you claim exists and you might have an argument.

Hey you started the thread discussing God and giving the impression you were referring to the Christian understanding of God. While there are logical arguments that can be used, I don't have to. We are talking about the Christian God who is defined as Spirit in nature.

All of time and space is in the present to God. Something greater than the source is logically impossible. Something more perfect that perfect makes no sense.

You say we can't understand God yet you claim to know all about him. That's self-contradictory and, in my opinion, just your own desires expressed as fact.

We understand what he has revealed of himself to us.

Now to give a snide answer to a non-serious question. Jesus was God, he fell numerous times under the weight of the cross. If a large piece of wood is too heavy then there would be rocks he could not lift. And yet God can do anything by his will alone. So there were rocks that he both simultaneously could and could not lift.

Sophistry. Can and cannot are mutually exclusive. In your story your God chose to limit himself to what a human body was capable of and not utilize his power. That does not demonstrate that he could have easily carried the cross and not died from being tormented. Totally different circumstances.

No duh. It is a dumb question to begin with.

It wasn't really a question, if you'd read the entire paragraph. I used that particular question to express the incoherence of the concept of omnipotence. Apparently that went over your head as well.

And it was once again you viewing God as a being instead of being itself as a piece of existence instead of existence itself, the infinite compared to the finite. Heck we don't even know what matter and energy are - we know properties, but not what they are.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:20:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 4:50:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:48:15 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

He is the highest singularity. Nothing can exist without Him, so no.
He didn't create the paradigm in which he exists.

He created paradigms. They don't exist without Him.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:07:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:54:11 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:57:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:21:07 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:31:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:15:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

This is the problem with most atheists. God is not a being. God is being itself.

And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

Two things. If God is not a being, why does it speak and act like one in holy Christian writ?

Because we understand God based on our experience. We cannot actually comprehend life in eternity, or the sheer being of God. Our understanding of God is limited by our personal limitations. It is like my dog. He understood us to be some form of super-dog. He interacted and viewed us according to his frame of reference. Likewise our understanding of God is limited by our fallen nature.

So we're just advanced dogs. Good to know how you feel about how your loving God feels about you.

Actually that would be your random evolution theory viewpoint.

Uh, no. There is no conscious volition behind evolutionary processes. It's apparent you do not really understand evolution.

No, I do. I never claimed any conscious volition behind your view of evolution. It is random because it requires random mutations to create improvements/adaptations that will get passed on.

I love when atheists act intentionally obtuse - it completely discredits them to serious readers.

I hate it when theists try to bulljive people with answers that make zero sense.

You understood that the analogy was just a useful analogy and then proceeded to say that God views us like dogs, when it had nothing to do with the analogy being made. Intentionally obtuse.

Second, the very concept of 'omnipotence' is incoherent. Questions like 'Can God create a rock so big that he could not lift it?' demonstrate this. An omnipotent being should be able to do anything yet he is limited by his own omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do whatsoever he desires. All of nature operates according to his will.

Yet his is limited by that omnipotence thus is not omnipotent after all. It's an incoherent concept. You did not really demonstrate otherwise here.

Everything that exists is an act of pure will on the part of God. Matter being finite (by design) is always inferior to the spiritual.

And there it is. Your are implicitly asserting the existence of a realm that you cannot in any way demonstrate or evidence. Once you do that you've left the realm of reality and stepped into baseless assertion. Show me some actual evidence of this 'spirit' you claim exists and you might have an argument.

Hey you started the thread discussing God and giving the impression you were referring to the Christian understanding of God. While there are logical arguments that can be used, I don't have to. We are talking about the Christian God who is defined as Spirit in nature.

All of time and space is in the present to God. Something greater than the source is logically impossible. Something more perfect that perfect makes no sense.

You say we can't understand God yet you claim to know all about him. That's self-contradictory and, in my opinion, just your own desires expressed as fact.

We understand what he has revealed of himself to us.

Now to give a snide answer to a non-serious question. Jesus was God, he fell numerous times under the weight of the cross. If a large piece of wood is too heavy then there would be rocks he could not lift. And yet God can do anything by his will alone. So there were rocks that he both simultaneously could and could not lift.

Sophistry. Can and cannot are mutually exclusive. In your story your God chose to limit himself to what a human body was capable of and not utilize his power. That does not demonstrate that he could have easily carried the cross and not died from being tormented. Totally different circumstances.

No duh. It is a dumb question to begin with.

It wasn't really a question, if you'd read the entire paragraph. I used that particular question to express the incoherence of the concept of omnipotence. Apparently that went over your head as well.

And it was once again you viewing God as a being instead of being itself as a piece of existence instead of existence itself, the infinite compared to the finite. Heck we don't even know what matter and energy are - we know properties, but not what they are.

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:07:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:54:11 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:57:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:21:07 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:31:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:15:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

This is the problem with most atheists. God is not a being. God is being itself.

And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

Two things. If God is not a being, why does it speak and act like one in holy Christian writ?

Because we understand God based on our experience. We cannot actually comprehend life in eternity, or the sheer being of God. Our understanding of God is limited by our personal limitations. It is like my dog. He understood us to be some form of super-dog. He interacted and viewed us according to his frame of reference. Likewise our understanding of God is limited by our fallen nature.

So we're just advanced dogs. Good to know how you feel about how your loving God feels about you.

Actually that would be your random evolution theory viewpoint.

Uh, no. There is no conscious volition behind evolutionary processes. It's apparent you do not really understand evolution.

No, I do. I never claimed any conscious volition behind your view of evolution. It is random because it requires random mutations to create improvements/adaptations that will get passed on.

I love when atheists act intentionally obtuse - it completely discredits them to serious readers.

I hate it when theists try to bulljive people with answers that make zero sense.

You understood that the analogy was just a useful analogy and then proceeded to say that God views us like dogs, when it had nothing to do with the analogy being made. Intentionally obtuse.

Second, the very concept of 'omnipotence' is incoherent. Questions like 'Can God create a rock so big that he could not lift it?' demonstrate this. An omnipotent being should be able to do anything yet he is limited by his own omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do whatsoever he desires. All of nature operates according to his will.

Yet his is limited by that omnipotence thus is not omnipotent after all. It's an incoherent concept. You did not really demonstrate otherwise here.

Everything that exists is an act of pure will on the part of God. Matter being finite (by design) is always inferior to the spiritual.

And there it is. Your are implicitly asserting the existence of a realm that you cannot in any way demonstrate or evidence. Once you do that you've left the realm of reality and stepped into baseless assertion. Show me some actual evidence of this 'spirit' you claim exists and you might have an argument.

Hey you started the thread discussing God and giving the impression you were referring to the Christian understanding of God. While there are logical arguments that can be used, I don't have to. We are talking about the Christian God who is defined as Spirit in nature.

All of time and space is in the present to God. Something greater than the source is logically impossible. Something more perfect that perfect makes no sense.

You say we can't understand God yet you claim to know all about him. That's self-contradictory and, in my opinion, just your own desires expressed as fact.

We understand what he has revealed of himself to us.

Now to give a snide answer to a non-serious question. Jesus was God, he fell numerous times under the weight of the cross. If a large piece of wood is too heavy then there would be rocks he could not lift. And yet God can do anything by his will alone. So there were rocks that he both simultaneously could and could not lift.

Sophistry. Can and cannot are mutually exclusive. In your story your God chose to limit himself to what a human body was capable of and not utilize his power. That does not demonstrate that he could have easily carried the cross and not died from being tormented. Totally different circumstances.

No duh. It is a dumb question to begin with.

It wasn't really a question, if you'd read the entire paragraph. I used that particular question to express the incoherence of the concept of omnipotence. Apparently that went over your head as well.

And it was once again you viewing God as a being instead of being itself as a piece of existence instead of existence itself, the infinite compared to the finite. Heck we don't even know what matter and energy are - we know properties, but not what they are.

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:34:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

The Tradition of the Church is invalid, only scripture has authority.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:35:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:07:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:54:11 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:57:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:21:07 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:31:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:15:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

This is the problem with most atheists. God is not a being. God is being itself.

And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

Two things. If God is not a being, why does it speak and act like one in holy Christian writ?

Because we understand God based on our experience. We cannot actually comprehend life in eternity, or the sheer being of God. Our understanding of God is limited by our personal limitations. It is like my dog. He understood us to be some form of super-dog. He interacted and viewed us according to his frame of reference. Likewise our understanding of God is limited by our fallen nature.

So we're just advanced dogs. Good to know how you feel about how your loving God feels about you.

Actually that would be your random evolution theory viewpoint.

Uh, no. There is no conscious volition behind evolutionary processes. It's apparent you do not really understand evolution.

No, I do. I never claimed any conscious volition behind your view of evolution. It is random because it requires random mutations to create improvements/adaptations that will get passed on.

I love when atheists act intentionally obtuse - it completely discredits them to serious readers.

I hate it when theists try to bulljive people with answers that make zero sense.

You understood that the analogy was just a useful analogy and then proceeded to say that God views us like dogs, when it had nothing to do with the analogy being made. Intentionally obtuse.

Second, the very concept of 'omnipotence' is incoherent. Questions like 'Can God create a rock so big that he could not lift it?' demonstrate this. An omnipotent being should be able to do anything yet he is limited by his own omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do whatsoever he desires. All of nature operates according to his will.

Yet his is limited by that omnipotence thus is not omnipotent after all. It's an incoherent concept. You did not really demonstrate otherwise here.

Everything that exists is an act of pure will on the part of God. Matter being finite (by design) is always inferior to the spiritual.

And there it is. Your are implicitly asserting the existence of a realm that you cannot in any way demonstrate or evidence. Once you do that you've left the realm of reality and stepped into baseless assertion. Show me some actual evidence of this 'spirit' you claim exists and you might have an argument.

Hey you started the thread discussing God and giving the impression you were referring to the Christian understanding of God. While there are logical arguments that can be used, I don't have to. We are talking about the Christian God who is defined as Spirit in nature.

All of time and space is in the present to God. Something greater than the source is logically impossible. Something more perfect that perfect makes no sense.

You say we can't understand God yet you claim to know all about him. That's self-contradictory and, in my opinion, just your own desires expressed as fact.

We understand what he has revealed of himself to us.

Now to give a snide answer to a non-serious question. Jesus was God, he fell numerous times under the weight of the cross. If a large piece of wood is too heavy then there would be rocks he could not lift. And yet God can do anything by his will alone. So there were rocks that he both simultaneously could and could not lift.

Sophistry. Can and cannot are mutually exclusive. In your story your God chose to limit himself to what a human body was capable of and not utilize his power. That does not demonstrate that he could have easily carried the cross and not died from being tormented. Totally different circumstances.

No duh. It is a dumb question to begin with.

It wasn't really a question, if you'd read the entire paragraph. I used that particular question to express the incoherence of the concept of omnipotence. Apparently that went over your head as well.

And it was once again you viewing God as a being instead of being itself as a piece of existence instead of existence itself, the infinite compared to the finite. Heck we don't even know what matter and energy are - we know properties, but not what they are.

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

Your traditions aren't evidence any more than modern day Odinists' are. Your god and Odin are exactly equal in the amount of real evidence for their existence.

But I'll let that go. Care to answer the question? How exactly did this non-being reveal parts of itself to you?
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:35:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:34:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

The Tradition of the Church is invalid, only scripture has authority.

Blah, blah, blah. You have no legitimate authority to make that statement.
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:40:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:35:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:07:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:54:11 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:57:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:21:07 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:31:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:15:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

This is the problem with most atheists. God is not a being. God is being itself.

And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

Two things. If God is not a being, why does it speak and act like one in holy Christian writ?

Because we understand God based on our experience. We cannot actually comprehend life in eternity, or the sheer being of God. Our understanding of God is limited by our personal limitations. It is like my dog. He understood us to be some form of super-dog. He interacted and viewed us according to his frame of reference. Likewise our understanding of God is limited by our fallen nature.

So we're just advanced dogs. Good to know how you feel about how your loving God feels about you.

Actually that would be your random evolution theory viewpoint.

Uh, no. There is no conscious volition behind evolutionary processes. It's apparent you do not really understand evolution.

No, I do. I never claimed any conscious volition behind your view of evolution. It is random because it requires random mutations to create improvements/adaptations that will get passed on.

I love when atheists act intentionally obtuse - it completely discredits them to serious readers.

I hate it when theists try to bulljive people with answers that make zero sense.

You understood that the analogy was just a useful analogy and then proceeded to say that God views us like dogs, when it had nothing to do with the analogy being made. Intentionally obtuse.

Second, the very concept of 'omnipotence' is incoherent. Questions like 'Can God create a rock so big that he could not lift it?' demonstrate this. An omnipotent being should be able to do anything yet he is limited by his own omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do whatsoever he desires. All of nature operates according to his will.

Yet his is limited by that omnipotence thus is not omnipotent after all. It's an incoherent concept. You did not really demonstrate otherwise here.

Everything that exists is an act of pure will on the part of God. Matter being finite (by design) is always inferior to the spiritual.

And there it is. Your are implicitly asserting the existence of a realm that you cannot in any way demonstrate or evidence. Once you do that you've left the realm of reality and stepped into baseless assertion. Show me some actual evidence of this 'spirit' you claim exists and you might have an argument.

Hey you started the thread discussing God and giving the impression you were referring to the Christian understanding of God. While there are logical arguments that can be used, I don't have to. We are talking about the Christian God who is defined as Spirit in nature.

All of time and space is in the present to God. Something greater than the source is logically impossible. Something more perfect that perfect makes no sense.

You say we can't understand God yet you claim to know all about him. That's self-contradictory and, in my opinion, just your own desires expressed as fact.

We understand what he has revealed of himself to us.

Now to give a snide answer to a non-serious question. Jesus was God, he fell numerous times under the weight of the cross. If a large piece of wood is too heavy then there would be rocks he could not lift. And yet God can do anything by his will alone. So there were rocks that he both simultaneously could and could not lift.

Sophistry. Can and cannot are mutually exclusive. In your story your God chose to limit himself to what a human body was capable of and not utilize his power. That does not demonstrate that he could have easily carried the cross and not died from being tormented. Totally different circumstances.

No duh. It is a dumb question to begin with.

It wasn't really a question, if you'd read the entire paragraph. I used that particular question to express the incoherence of the concept of omnipotence. Apparently that went over your head as well.

And it was once again you viewing God as a being instead of being itself as a piece of existence instead of existence itself, the infinite compared to the finite. Heck we don't even know what matter and energy are - we know properties, but not what they are.

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

Your traditions aren't evidence any more than modern day Odinists' are. Your god and Odin are exactly equal in the amount of real evidence for their existence.

Except that mine has a specific time and place that he has interacted with humanity instead of vague stories.

But I'll let that go. Care to answer the question? How exactly did this non-being reveal parts of itself to you?

He revealed himself through the prophets and Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. He left men with his authority, who wrote down his words and carried on the Traditions they learned. This has passed from generation to generation through to the present day.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:42:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:35:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:34:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

The Tradition of the Church is invalid, only scripture has authority.

Blah, blah, blah. You have no legitimate authority to make that statement.

As much authority as you do to say otherwise so we're on a level playing field. Still waiting on you to answer the question.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:43:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 5:19:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:13:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:50:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:48:15 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

He is the highest singularity. Nothing can exist without Him, so no.
He didn't create the paradigm in which he exists.

He didn't need to, it was empty apart from him though.
So he didn't create everything and is contingent upon the paradigm in which he exists.

That is a debatable point.

Jehovah is counted as the creator because as scripture says everything exists because Jehovah willed it.

Jehovah's son was used in creating other things and scripture says they were created through him and for him. However, since the will to create is his father's, and the power sued to create everything i also Jehovah is still credited with the creation.

It is the same in the case of Edison being credited with the invention of the light bulb even though it was his employees who did the actual inventing.

Hence Jehovah is the creator even though he was assisted by his only begotten son and possibly also by the Angels also once they had been created.

Te Paradigm n which he exists is only suitable for spirit beings like himself so I suppose you are probably right there. It is also in all probability immeasurably bigger than the whole of the universe. However that is a probability based on the speed with which Angels can get from A to B, which according to scripture can be almost instantaneous, and nothing else.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:45:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:42:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:35:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:34:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

The Tradition of the Church is invalid, only scripture has authority.

Blah, blah, blah. You have no legitimate authority to make that statement.

As much authority as you do to say otherwise so we're on a level playing field. Still waiting on you to answer the question.

On the contrary. You can point to who the president of the United States is because of process and the continuity of the line. In the same way I can show that the Papacy extends back to Peter in an unbroken line. There is only one body on earth that can make that claim.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:45:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:20:31 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:50:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:48:15 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

He is the highest singularity. Nothing can exist without Him, so no.
He didn't create the paradigm in which he exists.

He created paradigms. They don't exist without Him.

The spirit realm must have existed for him to be even its sole inhabitant. I assume that is the paradigm Bullyboy is referring to.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:45:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:40:19 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:35:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:07:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:54:11 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:57:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:21:07 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:31:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:15:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

This is the problem with most atheists. God is not a being. God is being itself.

And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

Two things. If God is not a being, why does it speak and act like one in holy Christian writ?

Because we understand God based on our experience. We cannot actually comprehend life in eternity, or the sheer being of God. Our understanding of God is limited by our personal limitations. It is like my dog. He understood us to be some form of super-dog. He interacted and viewed us according to his frame of reference. Likewise our understanding of God is limited by our fallen nature.

So we're just advanced dogs. Good to know how you feel about how your loving God feels about you.

Actually that would be your random evolution theory viewpoint.

Uh, no. There is no conscious volition behind evolutionary processes. It's apparent you do not really understand evolution.

No, I do. I never claimed any conscious volition behind your view of evolution. It is random because it requires random mutations to create improvements/adaptations that will get passed on.

I love when atheists act intentionally obtuse - it completely discredits them to serious readers.

I hate it when theists try to bulljive people with answers that make zero sense.

You understood that the analogy was just a useful analogy and then proceeded to say that God views us like dogs, when it had nothing to do with the analogy being made. Intentionally obtuse.

Second, the very concept of 'omnipotence' is incoherent. Questions like 'Can God create a rock so big that he could not lift it?' demonstrate this. An omnipotent being should be able to do anything yet he is limited by his own omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do whatsoever he desires. All of nature operates according to his will.

Yet his is limited by that omnipotence thus is not omnipotent after all. It's an incoherent concept. You did not really demonstrate otherwise here.

Everything that exists is an act of pure will on the part of God. Matter being finite (by design) is always inferior to the spiritual.

And there it is. Your are implicitly asserting the existence of a realm that you cannot in any way demonstrate or evidence. Once you do that you've left the realm of reality and stepped into baseless assertion. Show me some actual evidence of this 'spirit' you claim exists and you might have an argument.

Hey you started the thread discussing God and giving the impression you were referring to the Christian understanding of God. While there are logical arguments that can be used, I don't have to. We are talking about the Christian God who is defined as Spirit in nature.

All of time and space is in the present to God. Something greater than the source is logically impossible. Something more perfect that perfect makes no sense.

You say we can't understand God yet you claim to know all about him. That's self-contradictory and, in my opinion, just your own desires expressed as fact.

We understand what he has revealed of himself to us.

Now to give a snide answer to a non-serious question. Jesus was God, he fell numerous times under the weight of the cross. If a large piece of wood is too heavy then there would be rocks he could not lift. And yet God can do anything by his will alone. So there were rocks that he both simultaneously could and could not lift.

Sophistry. Can and cannot are mutually exclusive. In your story your God chose to limit himself to what a human body was capable of and not utilize his power. That does not demonstrate that he could have easily carried the cross and not died from being tormented. Totally different circumstances.

No duh. It is a dumb question to begin with.

It wasn't really a question, if you'd read the entire paragraph. I used that particular question to express the incoherence of the concept of omnipotence. Apparently that went over your head as well.

And it was once again you viewing God as a being instead of being itself as a piece of existence instead of existence itself, the infinite compared to the finite. Heck we don't even know what matter and energy are - we know properties, but not what they are.

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

Your traditions aren't evidence any more than modern day Odinists' are. Your god and Odin are exactly equal in the amount of real evidence for their existence.

Except that mine has a specific time and place that he has interacted with humanity instead of vague stories.

But I'll let that go. Care to answer the question? How exactly did this non-being reveal parts of itself to you?

He revealed himself through the prophets and Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. He left men with his authority, who wrote down his words and carried on the Traditions they learned. This has passed from generation to generation through to the present day.

So, what you really meant to say was that a lot of men wrote down stuff that they claim was revealed to them by your God, all of that got edited, redacted, and re-organized by the Councils of Nicea, then interpreted at the behest of a king and redone a number of times until he was satisfied with it and that constitutes divine revelation to you. Got it.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:48:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:45:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:42:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:35:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:34:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

The Tradition of the Church is invalid, only scripture has authority.

Blah, blah, blah. You have no legitimate authority to make that statement.

As much authority as you do to say otherwise so we're on a level playing field. Still waiting on you to answer the question.

On the contrary. You can point to who the president of the United States is because of process and the continuity of the line. In the same way I can show that the Papacy extends back to Peter in an unbroken line. There is only one body on earth that can make that claim.

Anybody can make a claim. That doesn't make it true. The fact is you have no evidence to support that claim any more than you do the existence of your deity.
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:53:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:45:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:40:19 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:35:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:07:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:54:11 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:57:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:21:07 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:31:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 6:15:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

This is the problem with most atheists. God is not a being. God is being itself.

And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

Two things. If God is not a being, why does it speak and act like one in holy Christian writ?

Because we understand God based on our experience. We cannot actually comprehend life in eternity, or the sheer being of God. Our understanding of God is limited by our personal limitations. It is like my dog. He understood us to be some form of super-dog. He interacted and viewed us according to his frame of reference. Likewise our understanding of God is limited by our fallen nature.

So we're just advanced dogs. Good to know how you feel about how your loving God feels about you.

Actually that would be your random evolution theory viewpoint.

Uh, no. There is no conscious volition behind evolutionary processes. It's apparent you do not really understand evolution.

No, I do. I never claimed any conscious volition behind your view of evolution. It is random because it requires random mutations to create improvements/adaptations that will get passed on.

I love when atheists act intentionally obtuse - it completely discredits them to serious readers.

I hate it when theists try to bulljive people with answers that make zero sense.

You understood that the analogy was just a useful analogy and then proceeded to say that God views us like dogs, when it had nothing to do with the analogy being made. Intentionally obtuse.

Second, the very concept of 'omnipotence' is incoherent. Questions like 'Can God create a rock so big that he could not lift it?' demonstrate this. An omnipotent being should be able to do anything yet he is limited by his own omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do whatsoever he desires. All of nature operates according to his will.

Yet his is limited by that omnipotence thus is not omnipotent after all. It's an incoherent concept. You did not really demonstrate otherwise here.

Everything that exists is an act of pure will on the part of God. Matter being finite (by design) is always inferior to the spiritual.

And there it is. Your are implicitly asserting the existence of a realm that you cannot in any way demonstrate or evidence. Once you do that you've left the realm of reality and stepped into baseless assertion. Show me some actual evidence of this 'spirit' you claim exists and you might have an argument.

Hey you started the thread discussing God and giving the impression you were referring to the Christian understanding of God. While there are logical arguments that can be used, I don't have to. We are talking about the Christian God who is defined as Spirit in nature.

All of time and space is in the present to God. Something greater than the source is logically impossible. Something more perfect that perfect makes no sense.

You say we can't understand God yet you claim to know all about him. That's self-contradictory and, in my opinion, just your own desires expressed as fact.

We understand what he has revealed of himself to us.

Now to give a snide answer to a non-serious question. Jesus was God, he fell numerous times under the weight of the cross. If a large piece of wood is too heavy then there would be rocks he could not lift. And yet God can do anything by his will alone. So there were rocks that he both simultaneously could and could not lift.

Sophistry. Can and cannot are mutually exclusive. In your story your God chose to limit himself to what a human body was capable of and not utilize his power. That does not demonstrate that he could have easily carried the cross and not died from being tormented. Totally different circumstances.

No duh. It is a dumb question to begin with.

It wasn't really a question, if you'd read the entire paragraph. I used that particular question to express the incoherence of the concept of omnipotence. Apparently that went over your head as well.

And it was once again you viewing God as a being instead of being itself as a piece of existence instead of existence itself, the infinite compared to the finite. Heck we don't even know what matter and energy are - we know properties, but not what they are.

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

Your traditions aren't evidence any more than modern day Odinists' are. Your god and Odin are exactly equal in the amount of real evidence for their existence.

Except that mine has a specific time and place that he has interacted with humanity instead of vague stories.

But I'll let that go. Care to answer the question? How exactly did this non-being reveal parts of itself to you?

He revealed himself through the prophets and Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. He left men with his authority, who wrote down his words and carried on the Traditions they learned. This has passed from generation to generation through to the present day.

So, what you really meant to say was that a lot of men wrote down stuff that they claim was revealed to them by your God, all of that got edited, redacted, and re-organized by the Councils of Nicea, then interpreted at the behest of a king and redone a number of times until he was satisfied with it and that constitutes divine revelation to you. Got it.

Funny that wasn't even part of the council of Nicea. My claim is that these men wrote divinely inspired works. There were other works written that while good where not divinely inspired and there were yet other groups that attempted to pervert the message and wrote distorted false works.

There were also persecutions and dangers of assembly. Eventually the persecutions ended and the process of determining which works were authentically inspired began. This was not completed until about 60 years after Nicea. The Emperor was actually in favour of certain heresies which the Church leaders denied as being authentic to the fai
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:55:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:48:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:45:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:42:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:35:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:34:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

The Tradition of the Church is invalid, only scripture has authority.

Blah, blah, blah. You have no legitimate authority to make that statement.

As much authority as you do to say otherwise so we're on a level playing field. Still waiting on you to answer the question.

On the contrary. You can point to who the president of the United States is because of process and the continuity of the line. In the same way I can show that the Papacy extends back to Peter in an unbroken line. There is only one body on earth that can make that claim.

Anybody can make a claim. That doesn't make it true. The fact is you have no evidence to support that claim any more than you do the existence of your deity.

Well yeah it is a claim. We can also show all the Popes between then and now which makes it a substantiated claim.
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:55:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:48:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:45:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:42:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:35:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:34:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

The Tradition of the Church is invalid, only scripture has authority.

Blah, blah, blah. You have no legitimate authority to make that statement.

As much authority as you do to say otherwise so we're on a level playing field. Still waiting on you to answer the question.

On the contrary. You can point to who the president of the United States is because of process and the continuity of the line. In the same way I can show that the Papacy extends back to Peter in an unbroken line. There is only one body on earth that can make that claim.

Anybody can make a claim. That doesn't make it true. The fact is you have no evidence to support that claim any more than you do the existence of your deity.

http://www.newadvent.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 6:58:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:55:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:48:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:45:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:42:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:35:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:34:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

The Tradition of the Church is invalid, only scripture has authority.

Blah, blah, blah. You have no legitimate authority to make that statement.

As much authority as you do to say otherwise so we're on a level playing field. Still waiting on you to answer the question.

On the contrary. You can point to who the president of the United States is because of process and the continuity of the line. In the same way I can show that the Papacy extends back to Peter in an unbroken line. There is only one body on earth that can make that claim.

Anybody can make a claim. That doesn't make it true. The fact is you have no evidence to support that claim any more than you do the existence of your deity.

Well yeah it is a claim. We can also show all the Popes between then and now which makes it a substantiated claim.

You can't substantiate the supposed divine nature of the one who supposedly gave them the keys to the kingdom or his purported father so a list of leaders of a religion have no meaning outside the power structure of that church.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 7:01:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So we're just advanced dogs. Good to know how you feel about how your loving God feels about you.

Actually that would be your random evolution theory viewpoint.

Uh, no. There is no conscious volition behind evolutionary processes. It's apparent you do not really understand evolution.

No, I do. I never claimed any conscious volition behind your view of evolution. It is random because it requires random mutations to create improvements/adaptations that will get passed on.

I love when atheists act intentionally obtuse - it completely discredits them to serious readers.

I hate it when theists try to bulljive people with answers that make zero sense.

You understood that the analogy was just a useful analogy and then proceeded to say that God views us like dogs, when it had nothing to do with the analogy being made. Intentionally obtuse.

Second, the very concept of 'omnipotence' is incoherent. Questions like 'Can God create a rock so big that he could not lift it?' demonstrate this. An omnipotent being should be able to do anything yet he is limited by his own omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do whatsoever he desires. All of nature operates according to his will.

Yet his is limited by that omnipotence thus is not omnipotent after all. It's an incoherent concept. You did not really demonstrate otherwise here.

Everything that exists is an act of pure will on the part of God. Matter being finite (by design) is always inferior to the spiritual.

And there it is. Your are implicitly asserting the existence of a realm that you cannot in any way demonstrate or evidence. Once you do that you've left the realm of reality and stepped into baseless assertion. Show me some actual evidence of this 'spirit' you claim exists and you might have an argument.

Hey you started the thread discussing God and giving the impression you were referring to the Christian understanding of God. While there are logical arguments that can be used, I don't have to. We are talking about the Christian God who is defined as Spirit in nature.

All of time and space is in the present to God. Something greater than the source is logically impossible. Something more perfect that perfect makes no sense.

You say we can't understand God yet you claim to know all about him. That's self-contradictory and, in my opinion, just your own desires expressed as fact.

We understand what he has revealed of himself to us.

Now to give a snide answer to a non-serious question. Jesus was God, he fell numerous times under the weight of the cross. If a large piece of wood is too heavy then there would be rocks he could not lift. And yet God can do anything by his will alone. So there were rocks that he both simultaneously could and could not lift.

Sophistry. Can and cannot are mutually exclusive. In your story your God chose to limit himself to what a human body was capable of and not utilize his power. That does not demonstrate that he could have easily carried the cross and not died from being tormented. Totally different circumstances.

No duh. It is a dumb question to begin with.

It wasn't really a question, if you'd read the entire paragraph. I used that particular question to express the incoherence of the concept of omnipotence. Apparently that went over your head as well.

And it was once again you viewing God as a being instead of being itself as a piece of existence instead of existence itself, the infinite compared to the finite. Heck we don't even know what matter and energy are - we know properties, but not what they are.

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

Your traditions aren't evidence any more than modern day Odinists' are. Your god and Odin are exactly equal in the amount of real evidence for their existence.

Except that mine has a specific time and place that he has interacted with humanity instead of vague stories.

But I'll let that go. Care to answer the question? How exactly did this non-being reveal parts of itself to you?

He revealed himself through the prophets and Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. He left men with his authority, who wrote down his words and carried on the Traditions they learned. This has passed from generation to generation through to the present day.

So, what you really meant to say was that a lot of men wrote down stuff that they claim was revealed to them by your God, all of that got edited, redacted, and re-organized by the Councils of Nicea, then interpreted at the behest of a king and redone a number of times until he was satisfied with it and that constitutes divine revelation to you. Got it.

Funny that wasn't even part of the council of Nicea. My claim is that these men wrote divinely inspired works. There were other works written that while good where not divinely inspired and there were yet other groups that attempted to pervert the message and wrote distorted false works.

There were also persecutions and dangers of assembly. Eventually the persecutions ended and the process of determining which works were authentically inspired began. This was not completed until about 60 years afte

That doesn't change the fact it was all done by men, including King James. You're taking the word of other men and deciding it's all 'inspired' by your deity and claiming its divine revelation. If you did that with any other subject you'd be called foolish. Amazing how religion can switch off critical thinking.
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 7:02:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:58:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:55:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:48:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:45:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:42:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:35:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:34:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

The Tradition of the Church is invalid, only scripture has authority.

Blah, blah, blah. You have no legitimate authority to make that statement.

As much authority as you do to say otherwise so we're on a level playing field. Still waiting on you to answer the question.

On the contrary. You can point to who the president of the United States is because of process and the continuity of the line. In the same way I can show that the Papacy extends back to Peter in an unbroken line. There is only one body on earth that can make that claim.

Anybody can make a claim. That doesn't make it true. The fact is you have no evidence to support that claim any more than you do the existence of your deity.

Well yeah it is a claim. We can also show all the Popes between then and now which makes it a substantiated claim.

You can't substantiate the supposed divine nature of the one who supposedly gave them the keys to the kingdom or his purported father so a list of leaders of a religion have no meaning outside the power structure of that church.

True, but I does show a continuous power structure. If the message is true then the power structure if valid. There is evidence of the divine nature. If the conclusions from that evidence is true, I am right, if not I am wrong.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 7:04:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 6:55:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:48:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:45:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:42:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:35:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:34:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

The Tradition of the Church is invalid, only scripture has authority.

Blah, blah, blah. You have no legitimate authority to make that statement.

As much authority as you do to say otherwise so we're on a level playing field. Still waiting on you to answer the question.

On the contrary. You can point to who the president of the United States is because of process and the continuity of the line. In the same way I can show that the Papacy extends back to Peter in an unbroken line. There is only one body on earth that can make that claim.

Anybody can make a claim. That doesn't make it true. The fact is you have no evidence to support that claim any more than you do the existence of your deity.

http://www.newadvent.org...

Ah, yes, well, just as an example the documents that supposedly connect St. Linus to St. Peter were written 100 yeas after the fact. What you have in the Catholic Church justifying their power structure and that structure has a vested interest in making that lineage seem unbroken. Show me something that is not produced and promulgated by the Catholic church that supports this list in toto or it has little or no credibility.
Geogeer
Posts: 6,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 7:06:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 7:01:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
So we're just advanced dogs. Good to know how you feel about how your loving God feels about you.

Actually that would be your random evolution theory viewpoint.

Uh, no. There is no conscious volition behind evolutionary processes. It's apparent you do not really understand evolution.

No, I do. I never claimed any conscious volition behind your view of evolution. It is random because it requires random mutations to create improvements/adaptations that will get passed on.

I love when atheists act intentionally obtuse - it completely discredits them to serious readers.

I hate it when theists try to bulljive people with answers that make zero sense.

You understood that the analogy was just a useful analogy and then proceeded to say that God views us like dogs, when it had nothing to do with the analogy being made. Intentionally obtuse.

Second, the very concept of 'omnipotence' is incoherent. Questions like 'Can God create a rock so big that he could not lift it?' demonstrate this. An omnipotent being should be able to do anything yet he is limited by his own omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do whatsoever he desires. All of nature operates according to his will.

Yet his is limited by that omnipotence thus is not omnipotent after all. It's an incoherent concept. You did not really demonstrate otherwise here.

Everything that exists is an act of pure will on the part of God. Matter being finite (by design) is always inferior to the spiritual.

And there it is. Your are implicitly asserting the existence of a realm that you cannot in any way demonstrate or evidence. Once you do that you've left the realm of reality and stepped into baseless assertion. Show me some actual evidence of this 'spirit' you claim exists and you might have an argument.

Hey you started the thread discussing God and giving the impression you were referring to the Christian understanding of God. While there are logical arguments that can be used, I don't have to. We are talking about the Christian God who is defined as Spirit in nature.

All of time and space is in the present to God. Something greater than the source is logically impossible. Something more perfect that perfect makes no sense.

You say we can't understand God yet you claim to know all about him. That's self-contradictory and, in my opinion, just your own desires expressed as fact.

We understand what he has revealed of himself to us.

Now to give a snide answer to a non-serious question. Jesus was God, he fell numerous times under the weight of the cross. If a large piece of wood is too heavy then there would be rocks he could not lift. And yet God can do anything by his will alone. So there were rocks that he both simultaneously could and could not lift.

Sophistry. Can and cannot are mutually exclusive. In your story your God chose to limit himself to what a human body was capable of and not utilize his power. That does not demonstrate that he could have easily carried the cross and not died from being tormented. Totally different circumstances.

No duh. It is a dumb question to begin with.

It wasn't really a question, if you'd read the entire paragraph. I used that particular question to express the incoherence of the concept of omnipotence. Apparently that went over your head as well.

And it was once again you viewing God as a being instead of being itself as a piece of existence instead of existence itself, the infinite compared to the finite. Heck we don't even know what matter and energy are - we know properties, but not what they are.

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

Your traditions aren't evidence any more than modern day Odinists' are. Your god and Odin are exactly equal in the amount of real evidence for their existence.

Except that mine has a specific time and place that he has interacted with humanity instead of vague stories.

But I'll let that go. Care to answer the question? How exactly did this non-being reveal parts of itself to you?

He revealed himself through the prophets and Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. He left men with his authority, who wrote down his words and carried on the Traditions they learned. This has passed from generation to generation through to the present day.

So, what you really meant to say was that a lot of men wrote down stuff that they claim was revealed to them by your God, all of that got edited, redacted, and re-organized by the Councils of Nicea, then interpreted at the behest of a king and redone a number of times until he was satisfied with it and that constitutes divine revelation to you. Got it.

Funny that wasn't even part of the council of Nicea. My claim is that these men wrote divinely inspired works. There were other works written that while good where not divinely inspired and there were yet other groups that attempted to pervert the message and wrote distorted false works.

There were also persecutions and dangers of assembly. Eventually the persecutions ended and the process of determining which works were authentically inspired began. This was not completed until about 60 years afte

That doesn't change the fact it was all done by men, including King James.

Lol. Catholic.

You're taking the word of other men and deciding it's all 'inspired' by your deity and claiming its divine revelation.

Well we are dealing with a claim of divinity. Unless you propose that the divine cannot reveal Himself...

If you did that with any other subject you'd be called foolish. Amazing how religion can switch off critical thinking.

Lol... It is perfectly logical. You may not accept it, but that does not make it illogical.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 7:07:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2016 7:02:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:58:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:55:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:48:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:45:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:42:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:35:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:34:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:28:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/12/2016 6:24:57 PM, dhardage wrote:

So this non-being has revealed parts of himself to you. How exactly did he do that? Second, any time someone makes a claim of knowledge I will expect actual evidence, otherwise its all in the mind of the claimant and has no bearing on reality.

Well since we are discussing the Christian God we are discussing the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.

The Tradition of the Church is invalid, only scripture has authority.

Blah, blah, blah. You have no legitimate authority to make that statement.

As much authority as you do to say otherwise so we're on a level playing field. Still waiting on you to answer the question.

On the contrary. You can point to who the president of the United States is because of process and the continuity of the line. In the same way I can show that the Papacy extends back to Peter in an unbroken line. There is only one body on earth that can make that claim.

Anybody can make a claim. That doesn't make it true. The fact is you have no evidence to support that claim any more than you do the existence of your deity.

Well yeah it is a claim. We can also show all the Popes between then and now which makes it a substantiated claim.

You can't substantiate the supposed divine nature of the one who supposedly gave them the keys to the kingdom or his purported father so a list of leaders of a religion have no meaning outside the power structure of that church.

True, but I does show a continuous power structure. If the message is true then the power structure if valid. There is evidence of the divine nature.

Please provide such evidence. Assuming, of course, you mean evidence and not just someone's words written on a page, words that have no facts to support them.

If the conclusions from that evidence is true, I am right, if not I am wrong.

Again, what evidence?