God Debate

[Aqualung]

Aww, i'm getting confused, which posts have i answered, and which have i not? I think i'll leave it for a bit, my heads in a spin!!ooooooooooo:help:

SAme here! It's hard when you're debating so many points at once. Do you just want to focus on one point, until that's all debated out, and then go on to the next?

 

[pandamonk]

SAme here! It's hard when you're debating so many points at once. Do you just want to focus on one point, until that's all debated out, and then go on to the next?

Good idea. It's so hard since it's so many at once but also because there's so much to each one. You get half way through and your mind just stops and you're like, "wait what? Emm where am i? aghhhh"

 

[pandamonk]

Good idea. It's so hard since it's so many at once but also because there's so much to each one. You get half way through and your mind just stops and you're like, "wait what? Emm where am i? aghhhh"

Actually i don't think i'll debate at least until tonight, my minds away relaxing and not comnig back for a while so i can't think

 

[Aqualung]

Actually i don't think i'll debate at least until tonight, my minds away relaxing and not comnig back for a while so i can't think

That's fine. I'll debate whenever you get to it. I don't mind.

 

[pandamonk]

I don't feel up to debating for a while, maybe a week or 2. I've just started a college course and that's taking up a lot of my debating time and tiring me out.

 

[Aqualung]

No problem. I don't really mind. Whenever you feel like it.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Omnipotence(all powerful) i believe is impossible

reason: can god or any other, supposedly, omnipotent being make 2 magnets that are too powerful for god/that being to separate. if yes that god/being is not omnipotent as it cannot separate the magnets, if no that god/being is not omnipotent as it cannot make the magnets?

First of all, I have a question for you. Why do you find it necessary to say "God or any other omnipotent being"? The word "God" is not a name. It is a word that refers to the omnipotent, absolute being. "Any other omnipotent being" must, by definition, be God.

Concerning your argument, I'd stick with the conclusion that God's power is ultimately inconceivable. We can understand that it is very great, but we eventually come to a point where it is simply inconceivable.

Honestly, I consider this argument against theism to be a weak one. We toss around the designation of omnipotence only in concept because we have no experience of "all". It may just be easier to say that God is the most-powerful. He is supreme in power. This way we avoid pointless arguments.

you may say that he/it can but we cannot understand how, as we are not omniscient like him/it. But should God not give you the answer? Maybe even he/it doesn't have them? But he must, he is omniscient. So why does he not give you them? It's like a leader of an army sending his troops into a war without any weapons, or any means of acquiring those weapons, how are they meant to win? They would obviously call on the leader for help, or just abandon the mission and give up what they were fighting for. If the leader chose not to help, like God has, then I'm sure basically all the troops would abandon it, the few that remain would certainly lose the war, and their lives. Maybe that leader never really existed and was only a rumour spread by a few men who wanted to cause chaos or were greatly mistaken in what they believed. Or maybe the leader was the one who wanted to cause chaos (sounds like someone else mentioned in the bible, does it not?). This shows that either God does not exist, and was made up by confused, mistaken, or evil men, or that it you are worshipping the completely wrong being (not all moral)

Okay, here's how its gonna go:

I reply, "God does give us the answer but we aren't ready to understand."

Then you say, "then why doesn't God use His supreme power to make us ready?"

And I reply, "because the very reason we are in ignorance is because we at one point desired to be independent of God. If you really desire God's supreme help then you will surrender a life that endeavors otherwise."

This argument is based on the position that the spirit-soul, the actual living entity that we each are, is eternal in that it has no beginning and it has no end. People usually assume that saying that the souls are eternal with God means that we are on the same level as God. Actually, the eternal souls are eternally related and dependent on the eternal God. We existed prior to the bodies we now indwell and we will exist after them. There is no tracing the history of our existence or even how long we have been in contact with this illusory material energy that has caused us to become ignorant of our constitutional position.

omniscience (all knowing) i also believe is impossible if god is to have free will/act/think/do anything basically.

reason: if god was omniscient he would know everything he was going to do right from the start of his/its existence therefore anything it did do would be predetermined and even god a, supposedly, omnipotent being could not change what he knew would happen. therefore god could not have free will and is just, basically, acting with no thought etc. and if god knew everything what is the point of praying? he knows what you're going to say.

Okay but what if we say that God is acting simultaneously in an infinite number of different realms of existence and that although He knows how He will act in each of them, His desire to enjoy out of His own internal potency is never left unsatisfied. There is truly no need for God to change how He is going to act. And ultimately, His pastimes are inconceivable to us, just as is His power and knowledge.
Another definition of God is "all-attractive". Because all potencies are His, He is the most attractive Being in all existence. Prayer is realization of this. It is meant for devotion of God. Just because God knows what we will say in our prayer does not mean that we should cease praying. It helps us along in our spiritual realization of devotional service, which is our constitutional position.

originator and ruler of the universe:

ok the universe is too complicated, according to most christians, not to have a creator so must have been designed and build by god. But if god designed and built the universe does that also not make him/it too complicated not to have a creator so who created him/it? a super god? but would it/him not be too complicated, so who created him/it? a superdooper god? well who....you know where this is going. So is it not easier to say the universe was not designed or created? and maybe just accept the big bang theory or something?

just something to think about

I'm not familiar with the "too complicated" argument, but I also don't believe in an infinite regression of gods. It ultimately comes back to One Supreme Absolute Truth. Actually, oneness is what it means to be absolute. Everything absolute is non-different from every other thing that is absolute. So even if there is an absolute God who was "created" by another absolute God, they are essentially one and the same. Therefore infinite regression is nonsensical.

Although I believe the universe (as we know it) was created, I don't use God as the creator as an argument for His existence. We can very well say that the universe was not created and, actually, in one sense I would agree. The energy that the entire universe consists of is eternal. Of course, if God is only such because of His having all potencies then those potencies must be eternal as well. In other words, God can only be the supremely potent being because those potencies exist. If we say that at some point they did not exist then we are saying at some point God did not exist. Anyway, I do believe that the universal energy was previously unmanifest and that it will eventually return to that state. It has been cycling from unmanifest to manifest and back, forever. I suppose we could compare this to the theory that the universe is expanding and collapsing over and over again. And this is where one inquires why a God must exist at all. I would then reason that life/consciousness is not a product of material/chemical arrangement. We can theorize that it is and come up with all sorts of abiogenesis concepts but as a man of reason I ultimately come back to the "why" question. Why did life just magically appear in a purely mechanistic universe? There was obviously no necessity because necessity comes only after there is someone to have needs. I don't find any intelligence in the "it just happened" argument. Therefore I subscribe to a philosophy where both life/consciousness and lifeless matter/energy are existential truths. Rather than saying that life comes from matter, I say that life and matter are distinct. It is that life principle which moves the otherwise inert matter and God is the supreme and the 'fountainhead' of all living entities. He is the flame that all the tiny sparks are gathered around.

 

[Merlin]

These debates are little more than playing with the words. We can all create combinations of words which are impossible to exist together. For example, how can there be both an immovable object and an irresistible force? Sadly, these discussions do not move on the reader to better understanding of what might be.

It is possible to have a creator who is not all-powerful (omnipotent). Let me give you an illustration.

Supposing a pioneer farmer arrived at an untamed part of the world. It consisted of ancient woodland and grassland. He set about chopping down some trees to make housing for himself and the animals. He ploughed the fields and planted grain. He fenced in the prairie and made safe access to the streams. At that point he introduced his cattle and sheep.

Let us now pretend that we see this world from the point of view of a sheep (don't read anything into my choice of analogy).

From the sheep's point of view, the farmer created her world. Somehow, she starts to have babies at exactly the right time (because the farmer chose the correct month for insemination). Whenever the weather is bad and there is no food, some magic machine appears (a tractor and trailer) and delivers food. That person must be a God as they know exactly what is required and provide it. If problems happen when she is giving birth, an Angel turns up (the vet sent by the farmer) and make things better.
The sheep will believe that their 'God' makes the grass grow. We know he does not. The sheep will believe he makes a streams run. Again we know he does not. And this carries on as a good analogy. To the sheep, the farmer is omniscient and omnipotent, and indeed he so is. His knowledge and ability and resources are so much greater than those of the sheep that he could be considered a God by the sheep. But even he reaches his limits.

So where does this leave as as another hypothesis? Maybe there are a set of universal laws of matter. Maybe within this a super intelligence has evolved, which has tremendous power but not to change these universal laws. Like the farmer, these laws can be manipulated and improved upon, but not removed. World's can be created and in this people can also be created. But fundamentally everything has to obey these basic laws.

The next question, if this hypothesis were correct, is why would this super intelligence (God) create us? We know why the sheep were 'created'.

Merlin

 

[Merlin]

First of all, I have a question for you. Why do you find it necessary to say "God or any other omnipotent being"? The word "God" is not a name. It is a word that refers to the omnipotent, absolute being. "Any other omnipotent being" must, by definition, be God.

Concerning your argument, I'd stick with the conclusion that God's power is ultimately inconceivable. We can understand that it is very great, but we eventually come to a point where it is simply inconceivable.

Honestly, I consider this argument against theism to be a weak one. We toss around the designation of omnipotence only in concept because we have no experience of "all". It may just be easier to say that God is the most-powerful. He is supreme in power. This way we avoid pointless arguments.




Okay, here's how its gonna go:

I reply, "God does give us the answer but we aren't ready to understand."

Then you say, "then why doesn't God use His supreme power to make us ready?"

And I reply, "because the very reason we are in ignorance is because we at one point desired to be independent of God. If you really desire God's supreme help then you will surrender a life that endeavors otherwise."

This argument is based on the position that the spirit-soul, the actual living entity that we each are, is eternal in that it has no beginning and it has no end. People usually assume that saying that the souls are eternal with God means that we are on the same level as God. Actually, the eternal souls are eternally related and dependent on the eternal God. We existed prior to the bodies we now indwell and we will exist after them. There is no tracing the history of our existence or even how long we have been in contact with this illusory material energy that has caused us to become ignorant of our constitutional position.



Okay but what if we say that God is acting simultaneously in an infinite number of different realms of existence and that although He knows how He will act in each of them, His desire to enjoy out of His own internal potency is never left unsatisfied. There is truly no need for God to change how He is going to act. And ultimately, His pastimes are inconceivable to us, just as is His power and knowledge.
Another definition of God is "all-attractive". Because all potencies are His, He is the most attractive Being in all existence. Prayer is realization of this. It is meant for devotion of God. Just because God knows what we will say in our prayer does not mean that we should cease praying. It helps us along in our spiritual realization of devotional service, which is our constitutional position.



I'm not familiar with the "too complicated" argument, but I also don't believe in an infinite regression of gods. It ultimately comes back to One Supreme Absolute Truth. Actually, oneness is what it means to be absolute. Everything absolute is non-different from every other thing that is absolute. So even if there is an absolute God who was "created" by another absolute God, they are essentially one and the same. Therefore infinite regression is nonsensical.

Although I believe the universe (as we know it) was created, I don't use God as the creator as an argument for His existence. We can very well say that the universe was not created and, actually, in one sense I would agree. The energy that the entire universe consists of is eternal. Of course, if God is only such because of His having all potencies then those potencies must be eternal as well. In other words, God can only be the supremely potent being because those potencies exist. If we say that at some point they did not exist then we are saying at some point God did not exist. Anyway, I do believe that the universal energy was previously unmanifest and that it will eventually return to that state. It has been cycling from unmanifest to manifest and back, forever. I suppose we could compare this to the theory that the universe is expanding and collapsing over and over again. And this is where one inquires why a God must exist at all. I would then reason that life/consciousness is not a product of material/chemical arrangement. We can theorize that it is and come up with all sorts of abiogenesis concepts but as a man of reason I ultimately come back to the "why" question. Why did life just magically appear in a purely mechanistic universe? There was obviously no necessity because necessity comes only after there is someone to have needs. I don't find any intelligence in the "it just happened" argument. Therefore I subscribe to a philosophy where both life/consciousness and lifeless matter/energy are existential truths. Rather than saying that life comes from matter, I say that life and matter are distinct. It is that life principle which moves the otherwise inert matter and God is the supreme and the 'fountainhead' of all living entities. He is the flame that all the tiny sparks are gathered around.

It is possible to have a creator who is not all-powerful (omnipotent). Let me give you an illustration.

Supposing a pioneer farmer arrived at an untamed part of the world. It consisted of ancient woodland and grassland. He set about chopping down some trees to make housing for himself and the animals. He ploughed the fields and planted grain. He fenced in the prairie and made safe access to the streams. At that point he introduced his cattle and sheep.

Let us now pretend that we see this world from the point of view of a sheep (don't read anything into my choice of analogy).

From the sheep's point of view, the farmer created her world. Somehow, she starts to have babies at exactly the right time (because the farmer chose the correct month for insemination). Whenever the weather is bad and there is no food, some magic machine appears (a tractor and trailer) and delivers food. That person must be a God as they know exactly what is required and provide it. If problems happen when she is giving birth, an Angel turns up (the vet sent by the farmer) and make things better.

The sheep will believe that their 'God' makes the grass grow. We know he does not. The sheep will believe he makes a streams run. Again we know he does not. And this carries on as a good analogy. To the sheep, the farmer is omniscient and omnipotent, and indeed he so is. His knowledge and ability and resources are so much greater than those of the sheep that he could be considered a God by the sheep. But even he reaches his limits.

So where does this leave as another hypothesis? Maybe there are a set of universal laws of matter. Maybe within this a super intelligence has evolved, which has tremendous power but not to change these universal laws. Like the farmer, these laws can be manipulated and improved upon, but not removed. World's can be created and in this people can also be created. But fundamentally everything has to obey these basic laws.

The next question, if this hypothesis were correct, is why would this super intelligence (God) create us?

 

[Merlin]

Course not! No hypothesis is beyond possibility.
Agreed. I cant say I fully understand Strong Atheism.

Atheism needs tremendous faith. It is much more difficult to believe that there is nothing, than to believe that there is something. As there is no proof either way, I am surprised people are so sure.

 

[Merlin]

if your god reveals things to you, show me how omnipotence is possible eg. prove that what i said is wrong!
Why not say "NO ONE created the universe...It always was and that in itself says we can not even comprehend Its greatness"? You never actually said anything of any value, just went on about how great "God" is. Not actually saying how and why I'm, supposedly, wrong.

What gives you the strength to be an atheist? From where does your faith come? For atheism is surely a very powerful religion requiring deep faith in nothingness. I admire you for being so strong and so sure.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Well said Merlin,

I can't believe I have waded through this entire debate! I think that Pandamonk's insistance upon defining the "definition" of God has bogged down the discussion. Most of the logic presented here is paradoxical in that God cannot be defined, therefore He cannot exist. What is missing is probably the element that brought about a concept of God in the first place, and that is the growth of the spirit within us. Nurturing and understanding ourselves to the point that we transcend ourselves, meaning reaching the point of looking at ourselves, is almost supernatural. This cannot be defined as bio-mechanical synapses. There is something more there and it causes us to look for answers that we probably can never adequately define. Thus, there has been attainied at least that we know that there is more to it than we can empirically observe. So, I may know in my mind that there is definitely a God, but I could never prove it to anyone.

Pandamonk, Hi,

I hope that you escape from being browbeaten by over zealous fundamentalists. I see the distinct possibility of you discovering your inner spirit and it may cause you take another look at your position. There is nothing wrong with being analytical. Being analytical is not in opposition to being spiritual, just as Merlin has demonstrated.

My thanks to all of the posters, it has been mind numbing but I loved it. This may be the end of this thread, I don't know for sure. I just had to say something after reading 28 pages of debate.

 

[pandamonk]

What gives you the strength to be an atheist? From where does your faith come? For atheism is surely a very powerful religion requiring deep faith in nothingness. I admire you for being so strong and so sure.

i don't need to have "strength" to be an atheist. An Atheists is a non-theist, ie. SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT A GOD EXISTS. You don't need strength not to believe in something. It's like me saying, ohh you must have great strength not to believe in the "grumpherlomp" which so obviously exists. It talks to everyone in there sleep and decides everyones' fate for the day, yet is insentient(that word took some finding, lol). Ohh and what about the famous "George" who i talked about a few months ago, you can read about him here. Ohh you must be so strong and faithful, there is an infinite amount of implausible beings, like your god, who you obviously disbelieve in. ATHEISM IS NO RELIGION! You do have religions who have the atheistic believe that no god exists, but atheism as a whole is not a religion. Thanks for admiring me, I'm sure you don't and that you are, instead, mocking me!!!

 

[pandamonk]

Well said Merlin,

I can't believe I have waded through this entire debate! I think that Pandamonk's insistance upon defining the "definition" of God has bogged down the discussion. Most of the logic presented here is paradoxical in that God cannot be defined, therefore He cannot exist. What is missing is probably the element that brought about a concept of God in the first place, and that is the growth of the spirit within us. Nurturing and understanding ourselves to the point that we transcend ourselves, meaning reaching the point of looking at ourselves, is almost supernatural. This cannot be defined as bio-mechanical synapses. There is something more there and it causes us to look for answers that we probably can never adequately define. Thus, there has been attainied at least that we know that there is more to it than we can empirically observe. So, I may know in my mind that there is definitely a God, but I could never prove it to anyone.

Pandamonk, Hi,

I hope that you escape from being browbeaten by over zealous fundamentalists. I see the distinct possibility of you discovering your inner spirit and it may cause you take another look at your position. There is nothing wrong with being analytical. Being analytical is not in opposition to being spiritual, just as Merlin has demonstrated.

My thanks to all of the posters, it has been mind numbing but I loved it. This may be the end of this thread, I don't know for sure. I just had to say something after reading 28 pages of debate.

Time for some more mind numbing, lol. I'm already rather mind-numbed after trying to find the word "insentient" to accurately describe what i was trying to say. Hi Bennettresearch. Well i congratulate you on that mammoth task of reading the whole debate. How long did that take you? lol. Ok a few things that need to be cleared up. To be able to have a proper debate, both sides need to agree on what they are debating. Seeing as theres are wide variety of religious believers on this site and seeing as they all believe different things about "God" i tried to accommodate most in my first description. The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc, etc, is what most theists believe god is and what i choose to argue against. If you do not believe your god is as I have state, please define your god and we can discuss it. The most confusing and frustrating thing when trying to debate is when one person is debating something which the other doesn't even believe and then the other person couters the whole argument by saying "but my god is not....".

Most of the logic presented here is paradoxical in that God cannot be defined, therefore He cannot exist.

Are you sure you read the whole debate? Are you sure you understood the whole debate? One may argue that if a "god" cannot be defined there is no reason to believe in it. Same as if "Grimphlon" is not defined, why should we believe in it? We shouldn't. It's merely a nonsense word that I made up. Why should the word God be any different, seeing as it has no definition, it has no meaning and then to believe in a "god" would be ludicrous and irresponsible. So to intelligently and responsibly believe in a god, you should define it. The "growth of the spirit"? That is where we differ. I would call it "the growth of the imagination". What makes you sure that a god exists? Because your soul/mind believes what it has been told without questioning? I'm sorry if this has in any way offended, I am merely trying to let you see it from my point of view. "meaning reaching the point of looking at ourselves, is almost supernatural" Almost being the predominant word. It seems ALMOST supernatural, yet is totally natural. We, as humans, have evolved to be able to search and find answers. Sorry i do not know what "bio-mechanical synapses" are but why are you sure "There is something more there" which "causes us to look for answers that we probably can never adequately define". Ok there is more than we can empirically observe. Obviously. We don't have the technology or brain power to observe every detail of the whole universe. But we do not immediately assume that because we don't know "everything" that there is a god. Firstly to assume this we need to know what a god is and is not. Then, once defined, we need to know if it is possible. This is where our good old friend logic steps in. So we take the definitions of god and check to see if they are compatible. If they are, then, it is possible that a god can exist. If we find that they are not compatible, then a god, defined in this way, cannot exist. Many religions have defined their god and any that haven't are "ludicrous and irresponsible". So I have taken the widely accept definitions of God and found them to be incompatible, so these definitions of God cannot exist and these religions are based on an imagined "god". I haven't yet come across a definition of a god that is compatible. I am young though so this may change, but it will not be any of the definitions widely accepted by the main monotheistic religions.

Ok my brain is numb and I am very tired, lol, its 23.50.

Thank you again for spending the time to read this whole debate, and i hope that it is not "the end of the thread"

Pandamonk

 

[Mercury]

if god does exist - who is the one true god?

 

[Mike182]

if god does exist - who is the one true god?

exactly that, the one true god is - the one true God

and what ever form you worship that as, our minds cannot comprehend the full concept of God, could it be possible that God created several religious beliefs so that we could all understand at least soem part of him, because he knows we all respond to different things?

it sounds a bit bizzare, but its late at night and my coffee high wore off, so im alloud to be bizzare :sarcastic

the point im trying ot make however is:

god is a title, not a name, but a title, a human title, given to a spiritual thing* (for want of a better term) - the idea behind it is that it is something we can relate to. so what you call God and i call God may be very differnt in our imaginations, neither of our imaginations can get the whole thing*

on the other hand, that could easily be rejected as just being hippy-crud because different religions praise different Gods in different ways, and so how could a religion with many gods be the same as a religion with one god?

C_P

 

[Chimowowo]

I'm kinda lost as to the point of this debate. It seems irrelevant to me. Even by stating these paradox's...they , like everything else doesn't prove or disprove the existance of god. Nor does it even provide evidence for or against it. They are just paradox's.

Nevertheless since I love debates especially those involving lots of logic I will bite.

Basically what we have are questions about paradox's. Can God do something that he can't undo. Can God make something stronger/better/more powerful/fluffier/whatever than him/her/itself.

Well I bring forth...the analogy.

I ask you if a writer can write something that he then can't unwrite.
What I mean is a writer is god of his/her own writings. They can make a whole universe, planets, peoples different laws of physics. Whatever they want.

So now we have a way to actually visualize someone doing something. A writer can write something into existance. So can a writer define two magnets as being whatever he wants. They can be so strong nothing can seperate them. And it's true (at least in the writing). But then later on in the writings, he can then say they are seperated...and it's true (again in the writings). Well how did he do that...that's a paradox.

My point is, is that these things are paradox's...but not really. First, if a god existed and he was omnipotent then he can change/create anything. So he could theoretically make something he couldn't undo. But then he can then just redefine it at a later date/time/whatever.

So having something he can't undo and then having him undo it isn't really a paradox, because the rules can be changed. And also with the concept of time, it makes it easier. If something can't be seperated...that doesn't mean it never can be seperated...it just can't be right then...later on maybe it could change.

These paradox's are paradox's because we define them as paradox's. But God doesn't have to follow our definition or rules.

But again this really doesn't matter (other than fun). It neither proves nor disproves the existance of God or even the scope of his power.

Though Merlin...I wish you would describe what you mean by "Atheism needs tremendous faith. It is much more difficult to believe that there is nothing, than to believe that there is something. As there is no proof either way, I am surprised people are so sure."

I'm an atheist not because I have faith that I'm right. I'm an atheist because...I don't believe in a god. Faith has nothing to do with it. If you have questions or concepts further please rephrase it.

 

[pandamonk]

if god does exist - who is the one true god?

Give me every definition of every god that is believed in. If one is totally compatible, then it is possible that that god could exist. This would not mean that god does or doesn't exist, it just means that it is possible.

 

[pandamonk]

I'm kinda lost as to the point of this debate. It seems irrelevant to me. Even by stating these paradox's...they , like everything else doesn't prove or disprove the existance of god. Nor does it even provide evidence for or against it. They are just paradox's.

Nevertheless since I love debates especially those involving lots of logic I will bite.

Basically what we have are questions about paradox's. Can God do something that he can't undo. Can God make something stronger/better/more powerful/fluffier/whatever than him/her/itself.

Well I bring forth...the analogy.

I ask you if a writer can write something that he then can't unwrite.
What I mean is a writer is god of his/her own writings. They can make a whole universe, planets, peoples different laws of physics. Whatever they want.

So now we have a way to actually visualize someone doing something. A writer can write something into existance. So can a writer define two magnets as being whatever he wants. They can be so strong nothing can seperate them. And it's true (at least in the writing). But then later on in the writings, he can then say they are seperated...and it's true (again in the writings). Well how did he do that...that's a paradox.

My point is, is that these things are paradox's...but not really. First, if a god existed and he was omnipotent then he can change/create anything. So he could theoretically make something he couldn't undo. But then he can then just redefine it at a later date/time/whatever.

So having something he can't undo and then having him undo it isn't really a paradox, because the rules can be changed. And also with the concept of time, it makes it easier. If something can't be seperated...that doesn't mean it never can be seperated...it just can't be right then...later on maybe it could change.

These paradox's are paradox's because we define them as paradox's. But God doesn't have to follow our definition or rules.

But again this really doesn't matter (other than fun). It neither proves nor disproves the existance of God or even the scope of his power.

God is(hypothetically), some believe, un-changing. Whatever he does now is always as it is now. He cannot "change" his mind about what he wants, or change what he has done. Also, saying something cannot be undone means that it cannot be undone, no matter what circumstances there is, it still cannot be undone. If the argument was that, i would have worded it "can god or any other, supposedly, omnipotent being make 2 magnets that are [sometimes or for a certain time] too powerful for god/that being to separate." . Seeing as i worded it "can god or any other, supposedly, omnipotent being make 2 magnets that are too powerful for god/that being to separate.", this way, it means the magnets would always be too powerful. God cannot make something more powerful or strong than God, seing as he is all-powerful. But, not being able to do something limits his power, meaning he is not a god. You may say though, that his limited power therefore means he can create something stronger than himself, and yes he probably could, but he could never make something omnipotent as he is not omnipotent himself so does not having the power to do everything. Therefore being a god is impossible because of the question "can god or any other, supposedly, omnipotent being make 2 magnets that are too powerful for god/that being to separate?"

 

[pandamonk]

exactly that, the one true god is - the one true God

and what ever form you worship that as, our minds cannot comprehend the full concept of God, could it be possible that God created several religious beliefs so that we could all understand at least soem part of him, because he knows we all respond to different things?

it sounds a bit bizzare, but its late at night and my coffee high wore off, so im alloud to be bizzare :sarcastic

the point im trying ot make however is:

god is a title, not a name, but a title, a human title, given to a spiritual thing* (for want of a better term) - the idea behind it is that it is something we can relate to. so what you call God and i call God may be very differnt in our imaginations, neither of our imaginations can get the whole thing*

on the other hand, that could easily be rejected as just being hippy-crud because different religions praise different Gods in different ways, and so how could a religion with many gods be the same as a religion with one god?

This does not argue the existence of a god in any way. This merely assumes the god exists anyway. If you are right, why is there so much conflict between religions? Even between different parts of religions, ie. catholic + protestant. Sure they cannot all be right, so, therefore, cannot all be based on the one true god. Surely if god created all the religions based on different parts of himself, it would be a big enough deal to make it into all of the "holy" books so as to not cause conflict between religions. Seeing as there isn't a mention, the god was either not omniscient to know that conflict would arise or not all-loving/good. Either way shows that the "one true god" doesn't exist.