-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God Debate
- Thread starter pandamonk
- Start date
Heh.. thats the problem. You have defined square and circle to be different things. Your own definition of what a square and circle are defies and will refuse to accept an explanation of how they can be the same.pandamonk said:
Perhaps an omnipotent being can do this, but it simply isnt possible to explain it to you. You are a mortal with limited capacity for understanding.
Hey I dont mind playing devils advocate..
stemann
Time Bandit
Hi ive just read all this thread and ill try to offer some explanations- they will probably be incredibly bad though-here goes:
Omnipotence: this means God can do anything. But, at the same time, even He cannot do something logically impossible, because 'to do something logically impossible' is itself a logical paradox (not just a linguistical one), since logic is the only irrefutable thing since in order to destroy logic you must use logic.
So He can do anything except that which is logically impossible. Theists might here say 'this means he is not omnipotent, so you are wrong.' But maybe the definition of omnipotent is wrong anyway, and it should mean 'able to do anything logically possible' rather than 'able to do anything at all'.
But again the theist might say, 'but this places logic on a higher status than God, and nothing is higher than God' etc., but i think that God IS logic, as He is the only uncreated being, and logic is the only irrefutable thing and perhaps it is also the only thing that DEFINES ITSELF (i am not so sure about this and have yet to come up with a good argument for it.)
So in other words, the definition of Omnipotence should be 'can do anything logically possible' instead of 'can do anything at all'. (and God is outside space and time so the notion of 'heaviness doesnt mean anything. I know that's a weak argument but hey, so is religion to the rational thinker. no offence to all you 'believers' out there.)
OK now omniscience. I understand what that person said about God not having free will because i thought that myself at one point. for instance, God always knows exactly the right thing to do, so He would always do the right thing, so He could not choose otherwise, as He is all-loving and would not do anything that is not completely the right thing, as this would make him not God. The weavers analogy assumes that there is more than one option open to God as the 'right thing', but if this was true, then both options would have to produce exactly the same result in terms of lovingness, and there is a good analogy which shows that if this were the case, it would be impossible to do anything. This paradox is called Buridan's donkey or something, and looks like this:
"A paradox of medieval logic concerning the behaviour of a donkey who is placed equidistantly from two piles of food of equal size and quality. Assuming that the behaviour of the donkey is entirely rational, it has no reason to prefer one pile to the other and therefore cannot reach a decision over while pile to eat first, and so remains in its original position and starves."
So God, having the choice of two identical moral actions, would not be able to choose between either of them. I'm sure this is a flawed argument as God is omniscient and could do whichever one he chose, but if there was any reason to choose one over the other then that would again mean that God would always choose that one, and so would never have chosen the other one, and we are back to the beginning. I think...... This is clear in my mind but i dont think i have explained it properly. Sorry.
Anyway, the square-circle thing, again this is logically impossible so the same argument applies as above.
And two more things that i dont understand. If God is so loving and all, how come every single person who died before the time of Jesus never had a chance to be saved, and are therefore all in Hell for eternity? And how could Adam and Eve choose to turn away from God before they even had free will? (since the tree of knowledge gave them free will. Before they ate from it they knew nothing of good and evil so how could they know it was 'evil' to turn away from God and eat the apple?)
I'm actually supposed to be doing revision for my RE exam right now but this will probably make up for it.
Argue back soon!
Omnipotence: this means God can do anything. But, at the same time, even He cannot do something logically impossible, because 'to do something logically impossible' is itself a logical paradox (not just a linguistical one), since logic is the only irrefutable thing since in order to destroy logic you must use logic.
So He can do anything except that which is logically impossible. Theists might here say 'this means he is not omnipotent, so you are wrong.' But maybe the definition of omnipotent is wrong anyway, and it should mean 'able to do anything logically possible' rather than 'able to do anything at all'.
But again the theist might say, 'but this places logic on a higher status than God, and nothing is higher than God' etc., but i think that God IS logic, as He is the only uncreated being, and logic is the only irrefutable thing and perhaps it is also the only thing that DEFINES ITSELF (i am not so sure about this and have yet to come up with a good argument for it.)
So in other words, the definition of Omnipotence should be 'can do anything logically possible' instead of 'can do anything at all'. (and God is outside space and time so the notion of 'heaviness doesnt mean anything. I know that's a weak argument but hey, so is religion to the rational thinker. no offence to all you 'believers' out there.)
OK now omniscience. I understand what that person said about God not having free will because i thought that myself at one point. for instance, God always knows exactly the right thing to do, so He would always do the right thing, so He could not choose otherwise, as He is all-loving and would not do anything that is not completely the right thing, as this would make him not God. The weavers analogy assumes that there is more than one option open to God as the 'right thing', but if this was true, then both options would have to produce exactly the same result in terms of lovingness, and there is a good analogy which shows that if this were the case, it would be impossible to do anything. This paradox is called Buridan's donkey or something, and looks like this:
"A paradox of medieval logic concerning the behaviour of a donkey who is placed equidistantly from two piles of food of equal size and quality. Assuming that the behaviour of the donkey is entirely rational, it has no reason to prefer one pile to the other and therefore cannot reach a decision over while pile to eat first, and so remains in its original position and starves."
So God, having the choice of two identical moral actions, would not be able to choose between either of them. I'm sure this is a flawed argument as God is omniscient and could do whichever one he chose, but if there was any reason to choose one over the other then that would again mean that God would always choose that one, and so would never have chosen the other one, and we are back to the beginning. I think...... This is clear in my mind but i dont think i have explained it properly. Sorry.
Anyway, the square-circle thing, again this is logically impossible so the same argument applies as above.
And two more things that i dont understand. If God is so loving and all, how come every single person who died before the time of Jesus never had a chance to be saved, and are therefore all in Hell for eternity? And how could Adam and Eve choose to turn away from God before they even had free will? (since the tree of knowledge gave them free will. Before they ate from it they knew nothing of good and evil so how could they know it was 'evil' to turn away from God and eat the apple?)
I'm actually supposed to be doing revision for my RE exam right now but this will probably make up for it.
Argue back soon!
May I ask who told you this? It is my, and most of the Christians' I know belief that during Jesus's 3 days He was preaching to the dead.
The tree did not give them free will, but knowledge of what was good and what was evil.
They did not know it was "evil" per se, but that it was not to be done. They knew God created them, and they knew they should listen to him.
pandamonk
Active Member
and why not? Shouldn't your god give you the answer? If your god loves me and wants me to choose the "right way" ie his way, shouldn't he give you the answer so i will back down and choose his way? If not he's just picking an choosing who to save. Not very moral is it?Linus said:
May I ask the names?
No, no you don't
On omniscience,
God exists outside of time, thus there is no past, present, future for Him. He exists in all time at the same time, so when He knows the future, it is because He has already been there, He knows what He is going to do because He has already done it.
At least this is how I have come to see it.
pandamonk
Active Member
Ok Adam and Eve i love that story, lol. Ok adam and Eve had a 3 sons ok? So wer they into incest or sumthing? If not how are we all here? Ohh yeah Cain married and had children, but who with?lol. So did Seth. hmmmm? Anyway did God not tell Adam and Eve that if they ate from the tree they would die? Ohh good found it without much effort, "God did say, ' You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die," And did the serpent not tell them they would gain more knoledge and see what God sees or summat like tht? Found it too, woohoo," 'You will not surely die,' the serpent said to the woman. 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.' " Well look what happened, the serpent was right and God lied going against his own commandments and morality."Then the eyes of both of them were opened" Maybe satanism is the right way? What do you think?(all quotes in Genesis 3:11 if you don't know the bible off by heart yet, lol)
stemann
Time Bandit
A strange man called Durante Alighieri who lived in the 13th century and wrote the Divine Comedy, quite a famous book. Even though he was kind of a paedophile, but that was ok in those days.
please, please, please, tell me the difference between this and the knowledge of good and evil.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure the story isn't as much about disobeying God as it is about the loss of innocence of man. I'll get the link when my computer starts working.
pandamonk
Active Member
provide me with valid evidence, if not then your point is totally worthless.Mister Emu said:
Books are called:
- Atheism: The Case Against God
- The impossibility of God
- The Dark Side of Christian History
pandamonk
Active Member
Ok so how do you decide what stories to read literally and what stories not to and why? is it the impossible ones you look for the true meaning and the more believable ones you take literally? Why not take the whole book as one big metaphor? But you can't do that because then it is worthless. It's just another book. Many books have underlying meanings. So what you take metaphorically someone else might take literally or vice-vera. Knowone knows the right way to take it(the way it was intended). So It really has to be one or the other. You choose.SOGFPP said:Me too.... I just don't read it literally.... you might wanna try that.