An omnipotent being would not only be able to transcend the laws of physics and probability, but also logic itself (One could for example, create a circle with four corners, or have 1+1= potato), because omnipotence is not bound by any limitations whatsoever.
So we can't even begin to comprehend the very meaning of the word Omnipotence.
ugh, i tried to ask someone about that whole "can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it" and after muddling around and avoiding the question for a zillion years comes up with "omnipotence isnt about physical strength..." wow. nice excuse...
@bleesev2 I mean its amazing, Only 100 years or so man kind have had cars an planes. An our generation is in the stepping stone, For finding other life out there with satalite telescopes. With the james webb satalite telescope, Being launched in 2016, Scientist are confident with combining the three main planet hunting telescopes capabilities of Hubble,Keplar an James webb,they will find life as soon as 2020 thats fucking AWESOME!!! An will pretty much exploit all religious beliefs theory's.
@bigwaverider1000 I think finding life outside of our own will be really difficult. The improbability of life spawning is quite significant, so even if you had 1,000,000 planets in the goldie locks zone, you can still count that only an extremely small fraction would actually have life. It would be absolutely amazing if we found some though.
@bleesev2 lol I know, Other factors will come into play. But the fact is humans will have another station, if its not occupied, In case of all the bad things that can already happen to us, like losing of the O zone layer, Our sun turns red, Asteroids heading our way, Over populating an way more bad crap. But just the thought of finding them would be awesome. They stated last week even if 2% of 200 billion stars in a single galaxy harbors only 1 goldie planet, That 2% number is 2 billion planets.
@bleesev2 Another is Humans at around 200,000 years on earth til only a hundred years ago with new technology, Really knew about the planets in our solar system. Keplar telescope that was launched 2 years ago, as of today keplar found 1,200 new planet candidates an 8% of those might have humanoid life on them, Being in the habitable zone, Of the Goldie locks theory. wouldn't our omnipotence now be scaled way smaller? Compared to bigger an older planets if asked there beliefs an worships?
@bleesev2 Just to many things that out flaw omnipotence, that cancels its self out Wikipedia has its (rock example). Being that hundreds of religions claim that there gods are omnipotence, Than how could they compete when already they are suppose to be limit less.( Wall theory: If one omnipotence being made a wall to hide something, the other suppose to be every where at once so how does that wall imply in if the other can be around it, when its intended to keep out the other omnipotence being.
Is the God of the Bible omniscient? It seems like it isn't in Exodus 32 Yahweh is about the kill of the Jews and Moses has to remain him not to but yahweh changes his mind.
then creates a new hierarchy which in turn is part of a greater hierarchy which in turn is part of an even greater hierarchy, one can continue for all infinite eternities imagine ever greater hierarchies but will never ever make up a -all infinity % of the endless hierarchy of supreme deities for it has no limit even beyond all imagining
believe it or fellow human creatures with limited minds theres actually an endless hierarchy of omnipotence beyond that of absolutely omnipotent and total omniscience and the omniverse (the highest and most powerful things comprehesible to our feeble limited minds), omnipotence lv. 1 or O 1 is all infinite (everything beyond infinity) times more powerful than the absolutely omnipotence, O 2 is all infinite times more powerful than O 1 etc.. goes to O all infinity,
Please tell me if I missed anything. My comments are not meant to offend anyone who believes in the common definition of omnipotence. I'm sorry if I offended anyone about their beliefs.
did you guys no that one of the definitions of omnipotence is to have all power not ability. in other words God's power can be defined as doing everything within natural law we just may not totally understand these laws especially since our understanding is limited. Plus the direct translation of omni=all and potent's root potens=power which basically means the true meaning of the word is what I said at top of this message. to be ABLE to do anything means one can do anything.
I can't really explain Omniscience. But I believe God could make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it by decreasing his strength lower than the rock weight so he couldn't lift it. Then to counter that he can't be all-powerful because he couldn't lift the rock, he could then increase his strength to a level where he could lift the rock. So basically, I think God's strength work by him decreasing or increasing his strength at any level he wishes.
i dont seem to understand how feeble human minds think they can limit Gods power with insect words like omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, our imagination and knowledge are dead matter compared to God. He transcends everything thats knowable and imaginable
I believe Molinism has the answer to the questions posed in this video.
Considering this video is based on Philosophers over 2000years ago and has not taken in to considertaion modern theology and philosophy of science it is easy to be fooled by the arguments given.
When discussing gods knowledge it can get into some pretty crazy areas and ideas of where knowledge comes from.
@slangoshi Thats a stupid argument, I mean i could say that about santa claus and say that he does exist, but you still would not believe me. You can say that about anything.
@ElGuapCakes Exactly, So lets see, IF he does sin, he is not god, If he does not do sin, he is not omnipotent (because omnipotence means he can EVERYTHING) So, thank you for helping prove my argument against god. God is either not omnipotent or not god.
I got the answer to the last one. Cold does not exist, according to the laws of physics, cold is the absent of heat. Cold itself does not exist. Darkness does not exist. In reality, darkness is the absent of light. We can study light but not darkness. Darkness itself does not exist. Evil is just like cold and darkness. God did not created evil, evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. - Albert Einstein.
@FireStormBaller I'm sorry but that was an utterly appalling attempt at a quote. You didn't use quotation marks, your grammar was terrible,the quote you used was different from the actual quote and finally the actual quote isn't even real; it's a fabrication.
@TehOwnerer999 That wasn't an utterly appalling attempt at a quote. Me not using quotation marks doesn't change the facts, my grammer wasn't terrible, the quote I used was the same from the actual quote and finally the actual quote is real, it's not a fabrication.
@FireStormBaller First you association is saying that Evil only comes from Atheists, people who do not believe in a god, and i can disprove that quite easily. Second, One, Evil is not the absence of good, you can have No good, and No evil, its called neutral. But you cannot have no darkness and no light, so your argument does not make sense. Lastly, even if your argument did make sense, it doesn't matter, you would of only disproved on of the MANY arguments in this video.
@FireStormBaller What? You can have Darkness, which is the idea of the absence of life, it is the initial word for no light. but that has nothing to do with Evil, because evil does not mean "no good" it means, evil. If I just sat there, watching tv. would i be doing something good? no... would i be doing something evil? no... I am being neutral, I agree with the darkness and light part, but Evil and Good are related completely differently.
@bleesev2 You can't have darkness which does not exist. It has to do with evil because evil is the absent of good. When a good person does nothing, that is evil enough. Evil is just like cold and darkness. God did not created evil. Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. - Albert Einstein.
@FireStormBaller No, you are wrong! Evil is not the absence of good, "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life." - (Dictionary) It does not say, "the absence of good" it says "morally wrong deeds" and again, I can easily disprove the comment that Violence can only be achieved with atheists. Also, how the hell do you know that that quote is real? You got it off a website, that was a CHRISTIAN BIAS WEBSITE. its just christian propaganda
@bleesev2 No, I'm right. Most of them are synonyms. And how do you get those evil? By the absent of good. When a good person does nothing, that is evil enough. How do you know the quote is fake?
@FireStormBaller Its true, i don't know whether the Quote is fake, but you don't know whether it is true or not, therefore it should just be ignored. No, if you are doing nothing good, that does not mean you are morally wrong, as long as you are not doing any evil. How is that evil enough if a good person does nothing. I think that saying someone who is not doing anything as evil, is evil in itself
@NunNestum No... you are saying if good people do nothing WHY something evil is going on, then they are evil. But if there doing nothing, in a small room, by themselves and there are no factors of an exterior environment, then they are not evil. Or otherwise, you are doing something evil right now
@FireStormBaller "No, you are wrong! Evil is not the absence of good, "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life." - (Dictionary) It does not say, "the absence of good" it says "morally wrong deeds" and again, I can easily disprove the comment that Violence can only be achieved with atheists. Also, how the hell do you know that that quote is real? You got it off a website, that was a CHRISTIAN BIAS WEBSITE. its just christian propaganda" -Seem familiar?
@bleesev2 No, I'm right. Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics what we consider cold is really the absent of heat. Cold itself does not exist. Darkness does not exist. Darkness is in reality the absent of light. We can study light but not darkness. Darkness itself does not exist. Evil is just like cold and darkness. God did not created evil. Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. - Albert Einstein. How do you not know?
@FireStormBaller You are repeating the same thing over and over again. Listen to me you brainwashed peon, Darkness might not exist. I agree with that statement, OK! listen! I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT! However, EVIL is not like DARKNESS. EVIL is relative! You can be doing no evil and no good, you can also be doing good and evil at the same time. Someone doing nothing, Nothing at all, in a little room, not reacting with anything, is not evil or good.
@FireStormBaller Pt2, you ridiculous little child with his hands over his eyes unable to open there mind that God might not exist! Stop posting the albert Einstien Quote, i did some research on the exact same quote, I'll give you some links in a Pm, if you notice the "status" of the story, that depicts whether the story was reliable, is set to "false" meaning its a FICTIONAL STORY and a FICTIONAL QUOTE! and because i don't think your little mind can handle relativity, read to pt 3
@bleesev2 I'm not repeating the same thing over and over again. I don't listen to lies. Evil is just like darkness. Cold is relative. I can't be doing no evil and no good, I can't also be doing good and evil at the same time. When good people do nothing, that is evil enough. I'm not a little child with my hands over my eyes. The status of the story wasn't set to false, meaning it isn't a fictional story and a nonfictional quote. Cold is relative just like evil.
@FireStormBaller pt 3 Evil is relative, What could be evil to someone could be good to someone else. We talk about Nazism, It was evil to a majority of the world, including myself, but to Hitler, and members of the Nazi party, it was good. Killing a murderer, to the murderers friends and family it was evil, but to the murderers potential victims it was good. When you react with nothing,
@bleesev2 What could be cold to someone could be hot to someone else. What can be too dark to someone, can be too bright for someone else. Evil is just like cold and dakrness. I can say that killing a theif is evil, another person can say it's good. I think today is hot, another person can say it's cold. I can say dim the light, it's too bright, another person can say, it's too dark and turn the light on higher. Evil is just like cold and darkness.
@FireStormBaller Read the link i sent you, in fact, anyone copy and paste "Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. - Albert Einstein." and then click the FIRST LINK and it says the status is FALSE and it says WHY IT IS FALSE! And i have to explain why Evil being relative is different from cold and hot being relative.
@bleesev2 It doesn't say why it's false because it's not false. I explained it. Evil is just like cold and darkness. God did not created evil. Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. - Albert Einstein.
@FireStormBaller JUST forget it, your "one of those" people, I have given you articles saying how it was false, i have debunked your theories, i went through and analyzed each individual argument and claimed. Yet you keep telling me its true with nothing to back it up, you keep repeating the same quote over and over again. People like you are too brainwashed, arrogant and closed minded to listen to anything i say, so fuck it, I am not going to spend my whole time talking to a brick wall.
@bleesev2 You didn't give any proof that it was false. You haven't debunked my theories. You didn't went through and give any proof about anything. I tell you the truth. You have no proof at all. You keep commenting and replieing without any proof. I'm not brainwashed, or arrogant, and being closed minded doesn't change the fact that I'm right and you're wrong.
@FireStormBaller I find it funny that the only proof you can give me is copying my message and changing all the "cans" with "cants" but, like that pm, it doesn't work out well as an argument. The Constant degree of whether weather is hot or cold, can be constant relative to the constant of temperature to what is defined hot and cold, not relative to an individual to what is defined hot and cold, but as a constant.
Still feel like i am talking to a brick wall here.
@bleesev2 See how easy it is to state something without proving it? All your links just states something but never proved anything. Stating something isn't showing what you can do, it isn't a feat. If I stated that I can fly but don't want to show it to you, would you believe me?
@FireStormBaller My links do prove that Omnipotents is false, I did prove something, I didn't just state something, It is a feat to prove something to you, Evil is the result when people do believe in god. - Albert Einstein.
@NunNestum Unlike evil, Cold and Hot, Darkness and brightness actually have a statistic constant measurement that can be examined and compared through varying degrees of heat and cold and darkness and light. For example, the study of temperature allows people to refer to a constant in which people can say whether a day truly is a cold day or a hot day to a constant statistical medium. However, Evil and Good do not have such a constant, and therefore are NOT like cold and hot.
@bleesev2 Cold and darkness doesn't have any existant on it's own just like evil. Temperature doesn't allow people to refer a constant which people constant in which people can say whether a day is cold or hot. I can say that 70 degrees is hot, and then 5 years later I can say 70 degrees is cold, it's not a constant statistical medium. Evil is just like cold, I can say that 70 degree is cold. I can say that killing a theif is evil. Then tomorrow
@FireStormBaller pt 4 (forget last sentence of part 3) When you react with nothing, evil is only relative to you, seeing as there is nothing to react to except inanimate objects. Therefore, your actions are only evil or good, if you think they are evil or good. Finally, Any actions relative to the scope of things, relative to the full universe, are not evil nor good, they are nothing, insignificant actions effecting insignificant parties. That is why Evil is not like Dark, Dark is not relative
@bleesev2 When good people do nothing, that is evil enough. When it's evil, it's just like darkness. Any evil relative to the scope of things, relative to the full universe, is just like darkness and cold. That is why evil is just like cold and darkness.
@bleesev2 lol I commend you. Because that was a hell of a long debate with a brick wall. I belive in both god an science an know how bible hugers, Really are blind in every aspect of there claims. Appearntly @bleesev2 thinks the color red or black protains evil an blue or white holds the essence of god XD when its a fact that 9/10 Jesus followers are the biggest hypocrites of thousands of different religious people, who want to learn god not to better there life, just to tell others whats what.
@FireStormBaller technically he did,evil is a byproduct of failure to do a better job at creating humans.It is kinda lame to give god so much credit but then back out of his responsibility when something makes him look bad.I would hardly think that someone who commands murder isn't evil
You cold and darkness example don't really make sense.Yeah evil is like darkness,and cold,in the sense that it is the opposite of something.
@sailornaruto39 Technically he didn't. Evil is just like cold and darkness. God did not created evil. Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. Thinking isn't knowing.. My cold and darkness makes sense.
@FireStormBaller like i said, it is a byproduct that was fully within his power to control,yet he did nothing.Knowing something bad is going to happen,being the one who created the situation and perfectly able to take care of it it is your fault.If He could could he not remove the concept of darkness and cold?
This is just like what the nonstampcollector said in a vid "the good stuff that is me(god),but the bad stuff,that is their fault".
@FireStormBaller How can you be so ignorant about it? If you make something,know it is going to turn out really bad and are fully able to fix it why not fix it?
"Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart."there is evidence to contradict this.Seeing as the whole atheist population isn't in jail, sweeden and japan are doing fine,And buddists are rather peaceful people.So i don't know why i bothered because u have shown u r full of crap
@FireStormBaller what to not answer the question and understand that if an an omnipotent being creates somthing he knows will fail yet creates it anyways, he is at fault ultimately.
All you are doing is dancing around responsibility to make him look better.
@FireStormBaller I don't no how many times iam going to tell you this,it is a byproduct.If you drop something that ends up hurting someone(something you saw you drop) and you didn't pick it up,the accident is your fault.
But all you are going to do is say "nope,nu uh"
even when i explained it to you,when you create something and are omnipotent everything is your fault one way or the other, if he can't even take resposiblity for being the indirect cause of evil then he shouldn't be worshipped
@FireStormBaller please tell me how he didn't create it,tell me what is wrong with my explanation that you aren't getting.yes iam aware people choose to do evil things,but that is something he could fix and chose not to,when something can cause something and you can fix it and you don't you are at fault.
but i guess you are too butt fucking stupid, i should expect it from someone who doesn't understand the value or blame*cough cough* Jesus *cough*
Most Christian thinkers rightly distinguish between what is PHYSICALLY impossible and what is LOGICALLY impossible. It is logically contradictory to suppose that God can create two adjacent mountains without a valley between them, or to hold that God can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift. All these are pseudotasks; these logically impossible tasks are not on a par with physically impossible tasks. A logically impossible action is not an action.
omniscience does not take away free-will. this argument is weak. i am an atheist by the way so i am not just arguing for emotional reasons. i have heard this argument be refuted by another atheist. a better argument against omniscients is that god cant know if his percieved omniscience is genuine and not just a delusion. if he cant know that for sure, he cant know anything
Omnipotence is only being able to do all things that fall into logic. the question can he create a boulder so heavy he cant lift is like asking can i become smarter than myself there is no logic in the questions. and omniscience is knowing all that exists so if the future has not happened yet then there is nothing to know yet. and if god says he knows something will happen in the future its because he will use his omnipotence to make it so.
@hbchambe2012 Omnipotence, by definition, is the ability to to anything. Anything includes breaking the rules of logic. You should abandon logic or the concept of omnipotence, they can´t exist togheter. If god knows the future and use his omnipotence to make it happen, then he is unable to change his choice, ominpotence is lost. If he wants to exercise his omnipotence to change his mind in the future, then he will be wrong in the present about his future actions, so, no omniscience.
The difference between the drivel thrown out by most atheists and the drivel thrown out by most believers, is that atheists are much wittier. Remember, most believers believe what they believe because it is what there scripture tells them. Most atheists believe what they believe because it is what the people they look up to tell them. That's why you hear the same arguments on both sides over and over again. We should either come up with new ideas, or find something else to argue about.
@japmerry "atheists believe what they believe because it is what the people they look up to tell them. That's why you hear the same arguments on both sides over and over again"
that premise is incorrect, they don't believe it because someone tells them to,they just see what is wrong with it from other people,the age of an argument doesn't effect the validty,same positive claims are gonna get the same rebutals
The free will / omniscience problem is not really a question of Logic at all. It actually concerns the philosophy of time. To be omniscient God has to know all things possible to be known. The question becomes, is it possible to know the future? Presentism maintains that the future does not exist until it becomes the moment. If this is an accurate view, than God would be required to know all the possible futures in order to fulfill the requirements of omniscience.
About your boulder. If God is all powerful than He must be able to limit His own power. Thus He would be able to make Himself no longer all powerful. By creating a boulder He could not lift, He would be limiting His own power. Logically this is not a problem. Of course from the point that God created the boulder He couldn't move than He would no longer be all powerful. The real question is, would He still be God.
And if God can, explain it logically like I do. Until then, that is one tough question. I can't logically imagine or think of God changing mind while having the having not changed the mind at the same time. So yeah.
And I have a hard time believing about omnibenevolence because of humans skinning lived animals, and all those other animal cruelty junk, but that's more of a personal issue. Ha, will you look at that, I can answer about all these omnipotent, omniscience "paradox-contradictions" until I finally found one where I can't even answer my own question. Does God have the ability to change mind while being omnipresence (exist through all time at the same time) and omnipotent?
But anyways, yeah, I personally believe that if there is a God, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence (meaning presence at all time at the same time as well), omnibenevolence, immortal. I mean, God is God, why wouldn't God be all those? God is God, God should be all those, duh. But yeah, that's the only problem that I see.
The issue is this, now lets say that omnipresence does mean presence at all time at the same time. How can God change his mind later on if he's presence at all time at the same time? There wouldn't be a later on, therefore he wouldn't have the ability to change his mind, therefore he wouldn't have a simple ability that even humans can do! Therefore, God can't be omnipotent and omnipresence! Well, God still kinda be omniscience. =O
But if God would change his mind, he would have to know that he's going to change his mind for God to be omniscience as I mention before. But why would God change his mind if he's going to know that he's going to change his mind in the first place? Will, I don't know about that, but I believe that God can change his mind because humans can therefore God can, just that if God does, God would have to know it for God is omniscience.
Here's where the issues come in, lets just say that omnipresence just means presence everywhere at the same time. So the question comes in, can God change his mind? Well, if humans can, then surely God should have the power to change his mind right? What I said before is that sure, God can change his mind, I believe this because human can, therefore God could right?
The only problem I see is omnipotent, and omnipresence, and (a bit) omniscience. Here's my question, does omnipresence mean presence at everytime at the same time? If it does, then we do have an issue here. I personally believe that omnipresence mean presence at everytime at the same time because of the prefix omni, meaning all. Time is something, therefore is in all, therefore an omnipresence being would be everywhere and everytime at the same time.
I am a christian and my argument is that we believe what we believe now. Nobody knows what happens after you die, and we cant see god so when you die you will find out the truth.
are how about this god is god he has control over his own attribute he can chose at will to shut off his omnipotence and his omniscience if he chooses to do so hints the reason he asked Adam if he had eaten of the fruit therefor keeping freewill freewill you can't comprehended god by fallen human logic if he has the attributes its only logical to think he can shut them off as well at will everything works toward his will even himself
If he wanted to yes he actually could everything works towards Gods will so if he was swilling to create a bolder that he could not lift then it would be so but if he changed his mind and decides to lift the boulder then it would be so your theory falls apart at this you can't test god by worthless human logic
a) God cannot create a boulder so heavey that he couldn't lift it.
Nobody can provide a logical case against his omnipotence given this premise.
b) God cannot change his mind
Most Atheists need to grow brains and realise that "all- powerful" means "able to do all possible things" not "able to do impossible things" (a contradiction in terms).
All this video shows is some kid failing philosophy and being dishonest to himself,
@acceptjesusorburn A human can change his/her mind. And you said God cannot change his mind, therefore, a God can't do something that a human can do. So by your logic, God is not omnipotent because he doesn't have the power/ability to change his mind.
@acceptjesusorburn Let me rephrase that. So by your logic, God is not omnipotent because he doesn't have the power/ability to change his mind, something a human can do.
Or perhaps it is that a human is not able to think like God, and that changing our minds is an attribute God desired to condition us with.
If it is even possible that God changing his mind is a logical impossibility.. then you cannot bear your burden of proof to challenge Gods omnipotence...
You most likely dont even understand what your arguing against... don't you have a banana to be eating or something?
@acceptjesusorburn Humans have the ability to change their minds. You said that God cannot change his mind, but chaning minds does exist, therefore is in all, therefore changing minds would be under omnipotence, but God cannot change his mind by your statement, then God is not omnipotence by your statement.
eg. If God created a tree that blows in the wind, Can God be a tree that blows in the wind?
Can God be "not God"?.
these non-things and logical fallacies should not be used in argumentation. Please explain in a situation where God should change his mind, im not sure if you understand your own statement.
@acceptjesusorburn If God created a treet that blows in the wind, then yes, God can be a tree that blows in the wind. Yes, God can be "not God." I'm not talking about situations God should change his mind, I'm talking about does God has the ability to change his mind. Like, there wouldn't be situations for God to be evil, but he has the ability to.
> a) God cannot create a boulder so heavey that he couldn't lift it.
> Nobody can provide a logical case against his omnipotence given this premise.
You said a logical case could not be made from. I did so and proved you wrong. Perhaps you wish to backpedal and say god is "very powerful" instead of omnipotent, since omnipotence is self-contradictory just like the square circle (assuming a flat euclidean plane).
i also said that nobody can create a logical case against omnipotence using such statements. They are meaningless combinations of words, they are not logically coherent.
statements like
- God cannot be "not God"
- God cannot make a square circle
- God cannot make a boulder so heavy that he cannot lift it.
Are really just a play on words, and if you believe they are logically possible and coherent then please explain how. Meaningless combinations of words are not logical arguments.
When you said that nobody could make a logical case against omnipotence using such statements (that is, being given that such statements are true), you were wrong, and proven in the above proof. God cannot be "not god" is perfectly coherent. God cannot make a square circle is perfectly coherent. Contradictory things cannot be done. Omnipotence is one such thing. If God cannot make a rock so large he cannot lift it, he does not meet the definition of omnipotence.
Heres an example, or an alternative to the heavy rock argument that is much easier to discuss, and does not need to be dissected for the fallacy to be shown.
1- God is omnipotent
2- God cannot be "not omnipotent"
3- There exists at least one things that God cannot do
4- God is not omnipotent.
All of these as "proofs" against omnipotence are beyond any plausible logic. They don't even challenge the definition of omnipotence. They really are a play on words.
2 doesn't follow from 1. If you are given something that God can't do, then yes. Someone who believes God were omnipotent would have to say that yes God can be not omnipotent. Phrased the way you've used and assuming 2 was given and that 1 was the assumption, you have disproved god's omnipotence by contradiction in 4. It is not a play on words, you have failed at basic logic, and are attempting to redefine logic to mean apologetics.
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'...
> His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible.
No. You may not redefine omnipotent to mean "somewhat potent", "logically potent", or "very potent". That is not what omnipotence means. An omnipotent god could both grant free will and not grant free will, and leave us struggling with the inescapable contradiction rather than being himself so limited. If yours can't, he is more equivalent to Thermoman than a deity.
I'm sorry i don't know where you are getting your definition of omnipotent, but its certainly not in norm with theology or apologetics. Please refer me to your definition.
Well, I suppose I could start with Funk and Wagnells, The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, or Webster's Third.
Omnipotence: Unlimited and universal power, as a divine attribute.
It really shouldn't come as a surprise to you that it doesn't agree with your apologetics, as apologetics is the field of theology devoted to retroactive lying to cover places you've already been proven wrong.
"Omnipotence: Unlimited and universal power, as a divine attribute."
This is correct terminology, I think that you can only appeal to unanswerable paradox' to straw-man this statement. Self referential questions that cannot be answered with formal logic.
I already made quick reference to God, possibly being able to do even logical impossibilities, but it would be irrelevant and impossible to disprove, Theology deducts with formal logic. You shouldn't use logical nonsense as proof.
It's not an unanswerable paradox. The non-apologetic argument is that yes god can make a rock he can't lift, and then when pressed he can lift it, and both events are always within his power. It would only seem a contradiction to us who are so limited. Your apologetics betray you. In attempting to justify yourself with formal logic, you undermine your position. In pretending your beliefs are rational, you open them to refutation. Simply embrace God as nonsensical.
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?"
Sorry that question can't be answered using formal logic due to its self referential nature, the same principal we see in the liar paradox "this statement is false".
Besides to suggest something along the lines of " God can create a square circle, it would just seem a contradiction to those of us who are limited" really is a nonsensical statement, not a statement of logical coherence as you put forth..
@acceptjesusorburn - It's asking, "Can God do things that are impossible in this universe with the logic that we understand from the universe?" If no, then God is somehow restricted by logic? If yes, then why would someone try to prove his existence USING logic when any or all of his characteristics and actions could be illogical?
Iv'e already told you that to try to disprove or reason against an omnipotence including logical impossibilities.. is baloney.
I embrace the scholastic position of omnipotence, as i have quoted to you... if it makes you happy to deny the existence of the multiple philosophical positions of omnipotence for your own emotional purposes.. then i respect that.
I don't pretend my beliefs are rational, rather i develop beliefs with rational based on what i know, similar to yourself.
Invisible pink has merit, since not being seen doesn't by definition imply an absence of color. As an example, consider RGBA color FF888800. It is pink, but with no alpha it is perfectly transparent. Simply by the definition of the color, it is both pink and invisible.
@rkyeun - Okay, well then a square circle; could I embrace the truth of the square circle as nonsensical? After all, why should it have to follow logic if God does not by being able to lift an unliftable rock?
Square and circle are incompatible in a way that pink and invisible are not. The definition of invisible does not preclude having a color. The definition of a circle does preclude having four sides of equal length joined at four right angles. But if you're trying to be on the same level of nonsense as god being omnipotent, then yes you can make a circle that has four corners, and all of physics and geometry can suck it at your whim.
@rkyeun pink is an abstraction of the mind caused by the brain interpreting certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation hitting the inside of your eye. pink does not exist in external reality. so unless a mind is visually observing an object, the object has no colour
Pink is a spectrum of light in the 630-740nm range with decreased intensity in the remainder of the visible spectrum. It does not depend on a human mind to interpret it, which is how we can define FF8888 as pink. It exists in the external reality and the inside of our eye reports it.
@rkyeun yes, the frequency of electro-magnetic waves exist external to our minds and when it hits our eye our mind imagines the abstraction we call colour, we could have just as easily interpreted the same frequency as a different colour or as sound or some other mental sensation. it just happened to be pink.
now if an invisible object was radiating a frequency of the visablelight spectrum, why would we not see it?
The names of colors is determined by language, regardless of our perception. Unless some kindergarten teacher was feeling especially cruel, nobody is going to confuse pink for blue because our language puts a word on the measurable frequency, not on the perception we have in our heads.
And it is very possible for an object to radiate so dimly we do not perceive it. The vast majority of stars in the night sky are invisible to us.They have color all the same.
@rkyeun you are not understanding what i mean. when i say pink i am talking about "pink" the concept not "pink" the word. the concept we label P-i-n-k could have just as easily been the interpretation for the electromagnetic frequency that we interperate as blue
the 1st organism to see in colour would have 1st had to discover electromagnetic radiation, then it needed some way to make use of the information so it invented colour
there is just energy and it moves in an oscilating motion. no colour
I understand what you mean. What you mean is wrong.
The concept of pink could not be color of blue. The concept of pink reflects the share of our experiences with things that reflect the color of pink, and our use of the language. If you associated the concept of pink with things that reflect the color blue, you have not formed a concept of pink but a concept of blue, and you have mislearned the language you name it in.
@rkyeun im not saying we rename it. im not talking about the sounds we use to label colours, im talking about that image you see in your mind when you percieve light. the image in your miund that you call pink could have been a different image, it could have been the image we call blue.
in a universe with no minds, there is no colour. colour is an illusion, just like sound. in external reality there are little gas molecules we call air and these molecules can form waves, sound is in your mind
You're wrong. What you have said does not in any way refute nor weaken my statements. In a universe with no minds there is still color, just nothing to name or notice it. The image in your mind "of pink" matches the "pink things" you are told by language "are pink".
Sorry, I live in the real world. When you want to retreat to a world where I may or may not have defeated your argument based on how you feel about it, it's not a good case. In the real world, we kick rocks and they move. I don't buy solipsism as an argument in any form.
@rkyeun 1st rule of debate, know your opponents argument. im not arguing for solopsism. i beleive reality is indapendant of our minds. reality has no colour. our INTERPRETATION of reality is not reality itself, it is a representation of reality. it is not a representation of how the world actually is, but an interpretation that is the most beneficial to our survival. it has nothing to do with solopsism. i believe the electro magnetic radiation is objective reality colour is its representaion
Yes, you keep saying that without any support and your assertion is still wrong. In the same way a moving photon is electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetic radiation has a frequency, and that frequency IS a color. You may need to consult a chart of the visible spectrum.
@rkyeun "electromagnetic radiation has a frequency, and that frequency IS a color." not untill that electromagnetic radiation has been percieved and interpreted by a mind
@rkyeun It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
– Lewis, 18
Even to apply his omniscience to being able to do even the logically impossible, is impossible to disprove or to even discuss. I'm not sure why you dissected my illiterate deductive argument.. thats what i was trying to show.
Also God appreciates our finite perspective of existence, and relates to us in an according manner. So you cant really challenge the emotions he expresses to relate.
Grant the following premise:
When God created mankind with free- will. He had to come to accept that some people would be forever lost to sin and evil. Similar to the multiple worlds theory... God could have created the existence with an ideal amount of evil to bring the maximum amount of people to know him.
5As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
@christlover3000 You are not understanding the proposition. If God can change it´s mind and decide to lift a bolder, then he is able to lift the bolder any time, so he is just pretending not be able to. Let´s rephrase to make it clear: Can God create something so heavy that he can´t lift, even if he changes his mind in the future?
@STDSkating that's a really dumb question to be asking someone sure if he wanted to he probably could hes God he can change the laws of physics then so can he change the laws of logic as well you simply can't use logic when it comes to God because he created logic in the first place.
And actually, let me just correct myself here so you don't get confused by my mistake:
When I say that things aren't heavy in space, I mean that they don't cause strain on your arms.. Or "lifting" as you so childishly love to say it..
But heavy/massive things are still heavy/massive in space in the sense that they are hard to move.. The earth is evident of that.. It's a heavy/massive thing that is heavy/massive even though it's in space..
@JesterAzazel Weight isn't constant, so there could be time and/or place that it's hard or easy to move. If you just have Earth with no orbit, no gravatational pull, no atmosphere, no nothing (you know what I mean), the "weight" will change, and if you can survive in space, you'll be able to move it.
Maybe god wanted to be angry maybe he found it amusing
deluxham 3 weeks ago
@deluxham Lol i just know my brothers going to steal my car tonight.Then i check it out the next day "FUCK !!!". LOL
a084123 3 days ago
An omnipotent being would not only be able to transcend the laws of physics and probability, but also logic itself (One could for example, create a circle with four corners, or have 1+1= potato), because omnipotence is not bound by any limitations whatsoever.
So we can't even begin to comprehend the very meaning of the word Omnipotence.
Tawaxyon 2 months ago
One Truth - Omar Faruk Tekbilek
sponsler 2 months ago
ugh, i tried to ask someone about that whole "can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it" and after muddling around and avoiding the question for a zillion years comes up with "omnipotence isnt about physical strength..." wow. nice excuse...
cavemantiger 2 months ago
@bleesev2 I mean its amazing, Only 100 years or so man kind have had cars an planes. An our generation is in the stepping stone, For finding other life out there with satalite telescopes. With the james webb satalite telescope, Being launched in 2016, Scientist are confident with combining the three main planet hunting telescopes capabilities of Hubble,Keplar an James webb,they will find life as soon as 2020 thats fucking AWESOME!!! An will pretty much exploit all religious beliefs theory's.
bigwaverider1000 3 months ago
@bigwaverider1000 I think finding life outside of our own will be really difficult. The improbability of life spawning is quite significant, so even if you had 1,000,000 planets in the goldie locks zone, you can still count that only an extremely small fraction would actually have life. It would be absolutely amazing if we found some though.
bleesev2 3 months ago
@bleesev2 lol I know, Other factors will come into play. But the fact is humans will have another station, if its not occupied, In case of all the bad things that can already happen to us, like losing of the O zone layer, Our sun turns red, Asteroids heading our way, Over populating an way more bad crap. But just the thought of finding them would be awesome. They stated last week even if 2% of 200 billion stars in a single galaxy harbors only 1 goldie planet, That 2% number is 2 billion planets.
bigwaverider1000 3 months ago
@bleesev2 Another is Humans at around 200,000 years on earth til only a hundred years ago with new technology, Really knew about the planets in our solar system. Keplar telescope that was launched 2 years ago, as of today keplar found 1,200 new planet candidates an 8% of those might have humanoid life on them, Being in the habitable zone, Of the Goldie locks theory. wouldn't our omnipotence now be scaled way smaller? Compared to bigger an older planets if asked there beliefs an worships?
bigwaverider1000 3 months ago
@bleesev2 Just to many things that out flaw omnipotence, that cancels its self out Wikipedia has its (rock example). Being that hundreds of religions claim that there gods are omnipotence, Than how could they compete when already they are suppose to be limit less.( Wall theory: If one omnipotence being made a wall to hide something, the other suppose to be every where at once so how does that wall imply in if the other can be around it, when its intended to keep out the other omnipotence being.
bigwaverider1000 3 months ago
Is the God of the Bible omniscient? It seems like it isn't in Exodus 32 Yahweh is about the kill of the Jews and Moses has to remain him not to but yahweh changes his mind.
MrEmeraldfusion 3 months ago
then creates a new hierarchy which in turn is part of a greater hierarchy which in turn is part of an even greater hierarchy, one can continue for all infinite eternities imagine ever greater hierarchies but will never ever make up a -all infinity % of the endless hierarchy of supreme deities for it has no limit even beyond all imagining
SlayerGod999 3 months ago
believe it or fellow human creatures with limited minds theres actually an endless hierarchy of omnipotence beyond that of absolutely omnipotent and total omniscience and the omniverse (the highest and most powerful things comprehesible to our feeble limited minds), omnipotence lv. 1 or O 1 is all infinite (everything beyond infinity) times more powerful than the absolutely omnipotence, O 2 is all infinite times more powerful than O 1 etc.. goes to O all infinity,
SlayerGod999 3 months ago
Please tell me if I missed anything. My comments are not meant to offend anyone who believes in the common definition of omnipotence. I'm sorry if I offended anyone about their beliefs.
ldsman213 3 months ago
did you guys no that one of the definitions of omnipotence is to have all power not ability. in other words God's power can be defined as doing everything within natural law we just may not totally understand these laws especially since our understanding is limited. Plus the direct translation of omni=all and potent's root potens=power which basically means the true meaning of the word is what I said at top of this message. to be ABLE to do anything means one can do anything.
ldsman213 3 months ago
Why doesnt God prove himself if he is real? There is a lot of unanswered questions.
Djones2011ful 6 months ago
I can't really explain Omniscience. But I believe God could make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it by decreasing his strength lower than the rock weight so he couldn't lift it. Then to counter that he can't be all-powerful because he couldn't lift the rock, he could then increase his strength to a level where he could lift the rock. So basically, I think God's strength work by him decreasing or increasing his strength at any level he wishes.
reptile202 7 months ago
@reptile202 but then that isn't the same thing as the premise.
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
dude you make no sense you are so flawed.
4chukwuebuka 7 months ago
@4chukwuebuka he does make perfect sense actually.
Mindaugas7100 7 months ago
i dont seem to understand how feeble human minds think they can limit Gods power with insect words like omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, our imagination and knowledge are dead matter compared to God. He transcends everything thats knowable and imaginable
SlayerGod999 7 months ago
I believe Molinism has the answer to the questions posed in this video.
Considering this video is based on Philosophers over 2000years ago and has not taken in to considertaion modern theology and philosophy of science it is easy to be fooled by the arguments given.
When discussing gods knowledge it can get into some pretty crazy areas and ideas of where knowledge comes from.
aaronstately 7 months ago
thanks for reciting wikipedia
CurseCreep 8 months ago
sorry mate but your a professional waffle-er meaning u talk alot of shit
IIVSNIPEVII 9 months ago
Logic is a dimension that God stands above.
slangoshi 11 months ago
@slangoshi Thats a stupid argument, I mean i could say that about santa claus and say that he does exist, but you still would not believe me. You can say that about anything.
bleesev2 10 months ago
There are many things that God cannot do, such as sin. This does not mean that He is not Omnipotent...
ElGuapCakes 11 months ago
@ElGuapCakes Yes it does, Omnipotent means he can do EVERYTHING. and i mean EVERYTHING not A LOT but EVERYTHING.
bleesev2 10 months ago
@bleesev2 No dude, God CANNOT sin. If he did sin, he would not be God.
ElGuapCakes 10 months ago
@ElGuapCakes Exactly, So lets see, IF he does sin, he is not god, If he does not do sin, he is not omnipotent (because omnipotence means he can EVERYTHING) So, thank you for helping prove my argument against god. God is either not omnipotent or not god.
bleesev2 10 months ago
I got the answer to the last one. Cold does not exist, according to the laws of physics, cold is the absent of heat. Cold itself does not exist. Darkness does not exist. In reality, darkness is the absent of light. We can study light but not darkness. Darkness itself does not exist. Evil is just like cold and darkness. God did not created evil, evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. - Albert Einstein.
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
@FireStormBaller I'm sorry but that was an utterly appalling attempt at a quote. You didn't use quotation marks, your grammar was terrible,the quote you used was different from the actual quote and finally the actual quote isn't even real; it's a fabrication.
TehOwnerer999 11 months ago
@TehOwnerer999 That wasn't an utterly appalling attempt at a quote. Me not using quotation marks doesn't change the facts, my grammer wasn't terrible, the quote I used was the same from the actual quote and finally the actual quote is real, it's not a fabrication.
FireStormBaller 11 months ago
@FireStormBaller First you association is saying that Evil only comes from Atheists, people who do not believe in a god, and i can disprove that quite easily. Second, One, Evil is not the absence of good, you can have No good, and No evil, its called neutral. But you cannot have no darkness and no light, so your argument does not make sense. Lastly, even if your argument did make sense, it doesn't matter, you would of only disproved on of the MANY arguments in this video.
bleesev2 10 months ago
@bleesev2 You can't prove it. You can have no darkness and light. It's not an argument. It's a fact.
FireStormBaller 10 months ago
@FireStormBaller What? You can have Darkness, which is the idea of the absence of life, it is the initial word for no light. but that has nothing to do with Evil, because evil does not mean "no good" it means, evil. If I just sat there, watching tv. would i be doing something good? no... would i be doing something evil? no... I am being neutral, I agree with the darkness and light part, but Evil and Good are related completely differently.
bleesev2 10 months ago
@bleesev2 You can't have darkness which does not exist. It has to do with evil because evil is the absent of good. When a good person does nothing, that is evil enough. Evil is just like cold and darkness. God did not created evil. Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. - Albert Einstein.
FireStormBaller 10 months ago
@FireStormBaller No, you are wrong! Evil is not the absence of good, "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life." - (Dictionary) It does not say, "the absence of good" it says "morally wrong deeds" and again, I can easily disprove the comment that Violence can only be achieved with atheists. Also, how the hell do you know that that quote is real? You got it off a website, that was a CHRISTIAN BIAS WEBSITE. its just christian propaganda
bleesev2 10 months ago
@bleesev2 No, I'm right. Most of them are synonyms. And how do you get those evil? By the absent of good. When a good person does nothing, that is evil enough. How do you know the quote is fake?
FireStormBaller 10 months ago
@FireStormBaller Its true, i don't know whether the Quote is fake, but you don't know whether it is true or not, therefore it should just be ignored. No, if you are doing nothing good, that does not mean you are morally wrong, as long as you are not doing any evil. How is that evil enough if a good person does nothing. I think that saying someone who is not doing anything as evil, is evil in itself
bleesev2 10 months ago
@bleesev2 I know it's true. Yes, when good people do nothing, that is evil enough. Paste this after the / after com. watch?v=E9Gd0Dd8Hec
They had the ability to stop the teacher but didn't. They are no better than the teacher. When good people do nothing, that is evil enough.
NunNestum 9 months ago
@NunNestum No... you are saying if good people do nothing WHY something evil is going on, then they are evil. But if there doing nothing, in a small room, by themselves and there are no factors of an exterior environment, then they are not evil. Or otherwise, you are doing something evil right now
bleesev2 9 months ago
@bleesev2 Yes, there is no evil because evil is just like cold and darkness. Evil itself does not exist. I'm not doing something evil right now.
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@FireStormBaller "No, you are wrong! Evil is not the absence of good, "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life." - (Dictionary) It does not say, "the absence of good" it says "morally wrong deeds" and again, I can easily disprove the comment that Violence can only be achieved with atheists. Also, how the hell do you know that that quote is real? You got it off a website, that was a CHRISTIAN BIAS WEBSITE. its just christian propaganda" -Seem familiar?
bleesev2 9 months ago
@bleesev2 No, I'm right. Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics what we consider cold is really the absent of heat. Cold itself does not exist. Darkness does not exist. Darkness is in reality the absent of light. We can study light but not darkness. Darkness itself does not exist. Evil is just like cold and darkness. God did not created evil. Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. - Albert Einstein. How do you not know?
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@FireStormBaller You are repeating the same thing over and over again. Listen to me you brainwashed peon, Darkness might not exist. I agree with that statement, OK! listen! I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT! However, EVIL is not like DARKNESS. EVIL is relative! You can be doing no evil and no good, you can also be doing good and evil at the same time. Someone doing nothing, Nothing at all, in a little room, not reacting with anything, is not evil or good.
bleesev2 9 months ago
@FireStormBaller Pt2, you ridiculous little child with his hands over his eyes unable to open there mind that God might not exist! Stop posting the albert Einstien Quote, i did some research on the exact same quote, I'll give you some links in a Pm, if you notice the "status" of the story, that depicts whether the story was reliable, is set to "false" meaning its a FICTIONAL STORY and a FICTIONAL QUOTE! and because i don't think your little mind can handle relativity, read to pt 3
bleesev2 9 months ago
@bleesev2 I'm not repeating the same thing over and over again. I don't listen to lies. Evil is just like darkness. Cold is relative. I can't be doing no evil and no good, I can't also be doing good and evil at the same time. When good people do nothing, that is evil enough. I'm not a little child with my hands over my eyes. The status of the story wasn't set to false, meaning it isn't a fictional story and a nonfictional quote. Cold is relative just like evil.
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@FireStormBaller pt 3 Evil is relative, What could be evil to someone could be good to someone else. We talk about Nazism, It was evil to a majority of the world, including myself, but to Hitler, and members of the Nazi party, it was good. Killing a murderer, to the murderers friends and family it was evil, but to the murderers potential victims it was good. When you react with nothing,
bleesev2 9 months ago
@bleesev2 What could be cold to someone could be hot to someone else. What can be too dark to someone, can be too bright for someone else. Evil is just like cold and dakrness. I can say that killing a theif is evil, another person can say it's good. I think today is hot, another person can say it's cold. I can say dim the light, it's too bright, another person can say, it's too dark and turn the light on higher. Evil is just like cold and darkness.
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@FireStormBaller Read the link i sent you, in fact, anyone copy and paste "Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. - Albert Einstein." and then click the FIRST LINK and it says the status is FALSE and it says WHY IT IS FALSE! And i have to explain why Evil being relative is different from cold and hot being relative.
bleesev2 9 months ago
@bleesev2 It doesn't say why it's false because it's not false. I explained it. Evil is just like cold and darkness. God did not created evil. Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. - Albert Einstein.
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@FireStormBaller JUST forget it, your "one of those" people, I have given you articles saying how it was false, i have debunked your theories, i went through and analyzed each individual argument and claimed. Yet you keep telling me its true with nothing to back it up, you keep repeating the same quote over and over again. People like you are too brainwashed, arrogant and closed minded to listen to anything i say, so fuck it, I am not going to spend my whole time talking to a brick wall.
bleesev2 9 months ago
@bleesev2 You didn't give any proof that it was false. You haven't debunked my theories. You didn't went through and give any proof about anything. I tell you the truth. You have no proof at all. You keep commenting and replieing without any proof. I'm not brainwashed, or arrogant, and being closed minded doesn't change the fact that I'm right and you're wrong.
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@FireStormBaller I find it funny that the only proof you can give me is copying my message and changing all the "cans" with "cants" but, like that pm, it doesn't work out well as an argument. The Constant degree of whether weather is hot or cold, can be constant relative to the constant of temperature to what is defined hot and cold, not relative to an individual to what is defined hot and cold, but as a constant.
Still feel like i am talking to a brick wall here.
bleesev2 9 months ago
@bleesev2 I can say that the weather is hot and it's 70 degrees. Then I can say killing a theif is good.
Evil is just like cold and darkness.
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@FireStormBaller Ok, well i am pissed off at you, so i am just going to use your tactic for the rest of the argument.
You cannot say that the weather is hot and its 70 degrees. Then you cannot say that killing a theif is good.
Evil is not like cold and Darkness
Evil is the result when people do believe in god. - Albert Einstein.
bleesev2 9 months ago
@bleesev2 I say the truth. Evil is just like cold and darkness.
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@bleesev2 See how easy it is to state something without proving it? All your links just states something but never proved anything. Stating something isn't showing what you can do, it isn't a feat. If I stated that I can fly but don't want to show it to you, would you believe me?
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@FireStormBaller My links do prove that Omnipotents is false, I did prove something, I didn't just state something, It is a feat to prove something to you, Evil is the result when people do believe in god. - Albert Einstein.
(Again, doing your method)
bleesev2 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bleesev2 You didn't prove anything.
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@NunNestum Unlike evil, Cold and Hot, Darkness and brightness actually have a statistic constant measurement that can be examined and compared through varying degrees of heat and cold and darkness and light. For example, the study of temperature allows people to refer to a constant in which people can say whether a day truly is a cold day or a hot day to a constant statistical medium. However, Evil and Good do not have such a constant, and therefore are NOT like cold and hot.
bleesev2 9 months ago
@bleesev2 Cold and darkness doesn't have any existant on it's own just like evil. Temperature doesn't allow people to refer a constant which people constant in which people can say whether a day is cold or hot. I can say that 70 degrees is hot, and then 5 years later I can say 70 degrees is cold, it's not a constant statistical medium. Evil is just like cold, I can say that 70 degree is cold. I can say that killing a theif is evil. Then tomorrow
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@FireStormBaller pt 4 (forget last sentence of part 3) When you react with nothing, evil is only relative to you, seeing as there is nothing to react to except inanimate objects. Therefore, your actions are only evil or good, if you think they are evil or good. Finally, Any actions relative to the scope of things, relative to the full universe, are not evil nor good, they are nothing, insignificant actions effecting insignificant parties. That is why Evil is not like Dark, Dark is not relative
bleesev2 9 months ago
@bleesev2 When good people do nothing, that is evil enough. When it's evil, it's just like darkness. Any evil relative to the scope of things, relative to the full universe, is just like darkness and cold. That is why evil is just like cold and darkness.
FireStormBaller 9 months ago
@bleesev2 lol I commend you. Because that was a hell of a long debate with a brick wall. I belive in both god an science an know how bible hugers, Really are blind in every aspect of there claims. Appearntly @bleesev2 thinks the color red or black protains evil an blue or white holds the essence of god XD when its a fact that 9/10 Jesus followers are the biggest hypocrites of thousands of different religious people, who want to learn god not to better there life, just to tell others whats what.
bigwaverider1000 3 months ago
@bleesev2 whoops im meant to say aperantly @firestormballer not your name lol my bad.
bigwaverider1000 3 months ago
@FireStormBaller cold and darkness are concepts to describe a lack of something.
Evil should be totally erasable.
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39 Evil is just like cold and darkness. God did not created evil. Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart.
FireStormBaller 6 months ago
@FireStormBaller technically he did,evil is a byproduct of failure to do a better job at creating humans.It is kinda lame to give god so much credit but then back out of his responsibility when something makes him look bad.I would hardly think that someone who commands murder isn't evil
You cold and darkness example don't really make sense.Yeah evil is like darkness,and cold,in the sense that it is the opposite of something.
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39 Technically he didn't. Evil is just like cold and darkness. God did not created evil. Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart. Thinking isn't knowing.. My cold and darkness makes sense.
FireStormBaller 6 months ago
@FireStormBaller like i said, it is a byproduct that was fully within his power to control,yet he did nothing.Knowing something bad is going to happen,being the one who created the situation and perfectly able to take care of it it is your fault.If He could could he not remove the concept of darkness and cold?
This is just like what the nonstampcollector said in a vid "the good stuff that is me(god),but the bad stuff,that is their fault".
Can you explain your cold and dark example
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@FireStormBaller How can you be so ignorant about it? If you make something,know it is going to turn out really bad and are fully able to fix it why not fix it?
"Evil is the result when people doesn't have God's love in their heart."there is evidence to contradict this.Seeing as the whole atheist population isn't in jail, sweeden and japan are doing fine,And buddists are rather peaceful people.So i don't know why i bothered because u have shown u r full of crap
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39 I'm not ignorant. If you didn't make it, then you didn't make it. I'm not full of crap.
FireStormBaller 6 months ago
@FireStormBaller what to not answer the question and understand that if an an omnipotent being creates somthing he knows will fail yet creates it anyways, he is at fault ultimately.
All you are doing is dancing around responsibility to make him look better.
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39 He didn't create it.
FireStormBaller 6 months ago
@FireStormBaller yes he did indirectly.
He had full power to stop it and still let it happen,he is responsible.Espeically when he created things in a way were it happened in the first place.
Iam telling you how it is his fault and all you are doing "no he isn't"
It is like i tell you 2+2=4 and you say it isn't
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39 No, he didn't. He didn't create it. It's not like you're telling me 2+2=4.
FireStormBaller 6 months ago
@FireStormBaller I don't no how many times iam going to tell you this,it is a byproduct.If you drop something that ends up hurting someone(something you saw you drop) and you didn't pick it up,the accident is your fault.
But all you are going to do is say "nope,nu uh"
even when i explained it to you,when you create something and are omnipotent everything is your fault one way or the other, if he can't even take resposiblity for being the indirect cause of evil then he shouldn't be worshipped
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@FireStormBaller please tell me how he didn't create it,tell me what is wrong with my explanation that you aren't getting.yes iam aware people choose to do evil things,but that is something he could fix and chose not to,when something can cause something and you can fix it and you don't you are at fault.
but i guess you are too butt fucking stupid, i should expect it from someone who doesn't understand the value or blame*cough cough* Jesus *cough*
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39 don't take that cussing too personally,i just do that sometimes :P
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
@sailornaruto39 By not creating it. Could, not should.
FireStormBaller 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just define omnipotence and omniscience in scientific terms and see if the two can somehow work together in a compatible theory: watch?v=ee2jtmhyO8Q
If such a theory exists then they can exist.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Most Christian thinkers rightly distinguish between what is PHYSICALLY impossible and what is LOGICALLY impossible. It is logically contradictory to suppose that God can create two adjacent mountains without a valley between them, or to hold that God can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift. All these are pseudotasks; these logically impossible tasks are not on a par with physically impossible tasks. A logically impossible action is not an action.
epiphone241 1 year ago
omniscience does not take away free-will. this argument is weak. i am an atheist by the way so i am not just arguing for emotional reasons. i have heard this argument be refuted by another atheist. a better argument against omniscients is that god cant know if his percieved omniscience is genuine and not just a delusion. if he cant know that for sure, he cant know anything
robertwc82 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY Sorry not enough room to do that.
totheword3000 1 year ago
Omnipotence is only being able to do all things that fall into logic. the question can he create a boulder so heavy he cant lift is like asking can i become smarter than myself there is no logic in the questions. and omniscience is knowing all that exists so if the future has not happened yet then there is nothing to know yet. and if god says he knows something will happen in the future its because he will use his omnipotence to make it so.
hbchambe2012 1 year ago
@hbchambe2012 Omnipotence, by definition, is the ability to to anything. Anything includes breaking the rules of logic. You should abandon logic or the concept of omnipotence, they can´t exist togheter. If god knows the future and use his omnipotence to make it happen, then he is unable to change his choice, ominpotence is lost. If he wants to exercise his omnipotence to change his mind in the future, then he will be wrong in the present about his future actions, so, no omniscience.
lfzadra 1 year ago
@hbchambe2012
> Omnipotence is only being able to do all things that fall into logic.
No. That is "being very powerful".
rkyeun 1 year ago
The difference between the drivel thrown out by most atheists and the drivel thrown out by most believers, is that atheists are much wittier. Remember, most believers believe what they believe because it is what there scripture tells them. Most atheists believe what they believe because it is what the people they look up to tell them. That's why you hear the same arguments on both sides over and over again. We should either come up with new ideas, or find something else to argue about.
japmerry 1 year ago
@japmerry "atheists believe what they believe because it is what the people they look up to tell them. That's why you hear the same arguments on both sides over and over again"
that premise is incorrect, they don't believe it because someone tells them to,they just see what is wrong with it from other people,the age of an argument doesn't effect the validty,same positive claims are gonna get the same rebutals
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
The free will / omniscience problem is not really a question of Logic at all. It actually concerns the philosophy of time. To be omniscient God has to know all things possible to be known. The question becomes, is it possible to know the future? Presentism maintains that the future does not exist until it becomes the moment. If this is an accurate view, than God would be required to know all the possible futures in order to fulfill the requirements of omniscience.
japmerry 1 year ago
About your boulder. If God is all powerful than He must be able to limit His own power. Thus He would be able to make Himself no longer all powerful. By creating a boulder He could not lift, He would be limiting His own power. Logically this is not a problem. Of course from the point that God created the boulder He couldn't move than He would no longer be all powerful. The real question is, would He still be God.
japmerry 1 year ago
And if God can, explain it logically like I do. Until then, that is one tough question. I can't logically imagine or think of God changing mind while having the having not changed the mind at the same time. So yeah.
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
And I have a hard time believing about omnibenevolence because of humans skinning lived animals, and all those other animal cruelty junk, but that's more of a personal issue. Ha, will you look at that, I can answer about all these omnipotent, omniscience "paradox-contradictions" until I finally found one where I can't even answer my own question. Does God have the ability to change mind while being omnipresence (exist through all time at the same time) and omnipotent?
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
But anyways, yeah, I personally believe that if there is a God, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence (meaning presence at all time at the same time as well), omnibenevolence, immortal. I mean, God is God, why wouldn't God be all those? God is God, God should be all those, duh. But yeah, that's the only problem that I see.
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
The issue is this, now lets say that omnipresence does mean presence at all time at the same time. How can God change his mind later on if he's presence at all time at the same time? There wouldn't be a later on, therefore he wouldn't have the ability to change his mind, therefore he wouldn't have a simple ability that even humans can do! Therefore, God can't be omnipotent and omnipresence! Well, God still kinda be omniscience. =O
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
But if God would change his mind, he would have to know that he's going to change his mind for God to be omniscience as I mention before. But why would God change his mind if he's going to know that he's going to change his mind in the first place? Will, I don't know about that, but I believe that God can change his mind because humans can therefore God can, just that if God does, God would have to know it for God is omniscience.
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
Here's where the issues come in, lets just say that omnipresence just means presence everywhere at the same time. So the question comes in, can God change his mind? Well, if humans can, then surely God should have the power to change his mind right? What I said before is that sure, God can change his mind, I believe this because human can, therefore God could right?
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
The only problem I see is omnipotent, and omnipresence, and (a bit) omniscience. Here's my question, does omnipresence mean presence at everytime at the same time? If it does, then we do have an issue here. I personally believe that omnipresence mean presence at everytime at the same time because of the prefix omni, meaning all. Time is something, therefore is in all, therefore an omnipresence being would be everywhere and everytime at the same time.
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
I am a christian and my argument is that we believe what we believe now. Nobody knows what happens after you die, and we cant see god so when you die you will find out the truth.
FlamingArrows1000 1 year ago
Very good video. I think I'll subscribe to the channel, providing it doesn't get leftwing/ political.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
are how about this god is god he has control over his own attribute he can chose at will to shut off his omnipotence and his omniscience if he chooses to do so hints the reason he asked Adam if he had eaten of the fruit therefor keeping freewill freewill you can't comprehended god by fallen human logic if he has the attributes its only logical to think he can shut them off as well at will everything works toward his will even himself
totheword3000 1 year ago
If he wanted to yes he actually could everything works towards Gods will so if he was swilling to create a bolder that he could not lift then it would be so but if he changed his mind and decides to lift the boulder then it would be so your theory falls apart at this you can't test god by worthless human logic
christlover3000 1 year ago
@christlover3000 God is a product of worthless human logic. Therefore I can use sound human logic to combat the concept.
FaerieStories 1 year ago
@FaerieStories
The answer to this video
a) God cannot create a boulder so heavey that he couldn't lift it.
Nobody can provide a logical case against his omnipotence given this premise.
b) God cannot change his mind
Most Atheists need to grow brains and realise that "all- powerful" means "able to do all possible things" not "able to do impossible things" (a contradiction in terms).
All this video shows is some kid failing philosophy and being dishonest to himself,
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn A human can change his/her mind. And you said God cannot change his mind, therefore, a God can't do something that a human can do. So by your logic, God is not omnipotent because he doesn't have the power/ability to change his mind.
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn Let me rephrase that. So by your logic, God is not omnipotent because he doesn't have the power/ability to change his mind, something a human can do.
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
@FireStormBaller '
Or perhaps it is that a human is not able to think like God, and that changing our minds is an attribute God desired to condition us with.
If it is even possible that God changing his mind is a logical impossibility.. then you cannot bear your burden of proof to challenge Gods omnipotence...
You most likely dont even understand what your arguing against... don't you have a banana to be eating or something?
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn Humans have the ability to change their minds. You said that God cannot change his mind, but chaning minds does exist, therefore is in all, therefore changing minds would be under omnipotence, but God cannot change his mind by your statement, then God is not omnipotence by your statement.
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
@FireStormBaller
Your conclusion doesn't follow,
eg. If God created a tree that blows in the wind, Can God be a tree that blows in the wind?
Can God be "not God"?.
these non-things and logical fallacies should not be used in argumentation. Please explain in a situation where God should change his mind, im not sure if you understand your own statement.
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn If God created a treet that blows in the wind, then yes, God can be a tree that blows in the wind. Yes, God can be "not God." I'm not talking about situations God should change his mind, I'm talking about does God has the ability to change his mind. Like, there wouldn't be situations for God to be evil, but he has the ability to.
FireStormBaller 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn
"Nobody can provide a logical case against his omnipotence given this premise."
1 | God cannot create a boulder so [heavy] that he couldn't lift it. | Given premise.
2 | There exists at least one thing God cannot do. | Existential of 1.
3 | That there is nothing God cannot do is false. | Double negation of 2.
4 | God is omnipotent if and only if there is nothing God cannot do. | Definition of omnipotent.
5 | That God is omnipotent is false. | Modus ponens from 3 and 4.
Q.E.D.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
Premise 1 is fallacious
How can a logical fallacy be used to argue against omnipotence?
a) Can god make himself "not God"
b) can God make a square circle?
Why should we use these "non-things" as evidence against an omnipotent God? rather, our arguments should be governed by logic.
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn
Statement 1 was the premise you gave.
> a) God cannot create a boulder so heavey that he couldn't lift it.
> Nobody can provide a logical case against his omnipotence given this premise.
You said a logical case could not be made from. I did so and proved you wrong. Perhaps you wish to backpedal and say god is "very powerful" instead of omnipotent, since omnipotence is self-contradictory just like the square circle (assuming a flat euclidean plane).
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
i also said that nobody can create a logical case against omnipotence using such statements. They are meaningless combinations of words, they are not logically coherent.
statements like
- God cannot be "not God"
- God cannot make a square circle
- God cannot make a boulder so heavy that he cannot lift it.
Are really just a play on words, and if you believe they are logically possible and coherent then please explain how. Meaningless combinations of words are not logical arguments.
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn
When you said that nobody could make a logical case against omnipotence using such statements (that is, being given that such statements are true), you were wrong, and proven in the above proof. God cannot be "not god" is perfectly coherent. God cannot make a square circle is perfectly coherent. Contradictory things cannot be done. Omnipotence is one such thing. If God cannot make a rock so large he cannot lift it, he does not meet the definition of omnipotence.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
Heres an example, or an alternative to the heavy rock argument that is much easier to discuss, and does not need to be dissected for the fallacy to be shown.
1- God is omnipotent
2- God cannot be "not omnipotent"
3- There exists at least one things that God cannot do
4- God is not omnipotent.
All of these as "proofs" against omnipotence are beyond any plausible logic. They don't even challenge the definition of omnipotence. They really are a play on words.
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn
2 doesn't follow from 1. If you are given something that God can't do, then yes. Someone who believes God were omnipotent would have to say that yes God can be not omnipotent. Phrased the way you've used and assuming 2 was given and that 1 was the assumption, you have disproved god's omnipotence by contradiction in 4. It is not a play on words, you have failed at basic logic, and are attempting to redefine logic to mean apologetics.
rkyeun 1 year ago
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'...
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn
> His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible.
No. You may not redefine omnipotent to mean "somewhat potent", "logically potent", or "very potent". That is not what omnipotence means. An omnipotent god could both grant free will and not grant free will, and leave us struggling with the inescapable contradiction rather than being himself so limited. If yours can't, he is more equivalent to Thermoman than a deity.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
I'm sorry i don't know where you are getting your definition of omnipotent, but its certainly not in norm with theology or apologetics. Please refer me to your definition.
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn
Well, I suppose I could start with Funk and Wagnells, The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, or Webster's Third.
Omnipotence: Unlimited and universal power, as a divine attribute.
It really shouldn't come as a surprise to you that it doesn't agree with your apologetics, as apologetics is the field of theology devoted to retroactive lying to cover places you've already been proven wrong.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
"Omnipotence: Unlimited and universal power, as a divine attribute."
This is correct terminology, I think that you can only appeal to unanswerable paradox' to straw-man this statement. Self referential questions that cannot be answered with formal logic.
I already made quick reference to God, possibly being able to do even logical impossibilities, but it would be irrelevant and impossible to disprove, Theology deducts with formal logic. You shouldn't use logical nonsense as proof.
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn
It's not an unanswerable paradox. The non-apologetic argument is that yes god can make a rock he can't lift, and then when pressed he can lift it, and both events are always within his power. It would only seem a contradiction to us who are so limited. Your apologetics betray you. In attempting to justify yourself with formal logic, you undermine your position. In pretending your beliefs are rational, you open them to refutation. Simply embrace God as nonsensical.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?"
Sorry that question can't be answered using formal logic due to its self referential nature, the same principal we see in the liar paradox "this statement is false".
Besides to suggest something along the lines of " God can create a square circle, it would just seem a contradiction to those of us who are limited" really is a nonsensical statement, not a statement of logical coherence as you put forth..
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn - It's asking, "Can God do things that are impossible in this universe with the logic that we understand from the universe?" If no, then God is somehow restricted by logic? If yes, then why would someone try to prove his existence USING logic when any or all of his characteristics and actions could be illogical?
Venaloid 1 year ago
@Venaloid
Because i believe that logic is objective, Yes you can still be an atheist and believe in invisible pink unicorns :) win, win.
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn - Sorry, does "logic is objective" mean that you believe logic applies outside the universe?
Venaloid 1 year ago
@rkyeun
cont..
Iv'e already told you that to try to disprove or reason against an omnipotence including logical impossibilities.. is baloney.
I embrace the scholastic position of omnipotence, as i have quoted to you... if it makes you happy to deny the existence of the multiple philosophical positions of omnipotence for your own emotional purposes.. then i respect that.
I don't pretend my beliefs are rational, rather i develop beliefs with rational based on what i know, similar to yourself.
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@rkyeun - So does that mean I can also embrace the invisible pink unicorn too?
Venaloid 1 year ago
@Venaloid
Invisible pink has merit, since not being seen doesn't by definition imply an absence of color. As an example, consider RGBA color FF888800. It is pink, but with no alpha it is perfectly transparent. Simply by the definition of the color, it is both pink and invisible.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun - Okay, well then a square circle; could I embrace the truth of the square circle as nonsensical? After all, why should it have to follow logic if God does not by being able to lift an unliftable rock?
Venaloid 1 year ago
@Venaloid
Square and circle are incompatible in a way that pink and invisible are not. The definition of invisible does not preclude having a color. The definition of a circle does preclude having four sides of equal length joined at four right angles. But if you're trying to be on the same level of nonsense as god being omnipotent, then yes you can make a circle that has four corners, and all of physics and geometry can suck it at your whim.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun invisible does preclude having a colour
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82
I choose the RBGA color FF888800. It has the color FF8888 (pink) and is invisible.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun pink is an abstraction of the mind caused by the brain interpreting certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation hitting the inside of your eye. pink does not exist in external reality. so unless a mind is visually observing an object, the object has no colour
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82
Pink is a spectrum of light in the 630-740nm range with decreased intensity in the remainder of the visible spectrum. It does not depend on a human mind to interpret it, which is how we can define FF8888 as pink. It exists in the external reality and the inside of our eye reports it.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun yes, the frequency of electro-magnetic waves exist external to our minds and when it hits our eye our mind imagines the abstraction we call colour, we could have just as easily interpreted the same frequency as a different colour or as sound or some other mental sensation. it just happened to be pink.
now if an invisible object was radiating a frequency of the visablelight spectrum, why would we not see it?
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82
The names of colors is determined by language, regardless of our perception. Unless some kindergarten teacher was feeling especially cruel, nobody is going to confuse pink for blue because our language puts a word on the measurable frequency, not on the perception we have in our heads.
And it is very possible for an object to radiate so dimly we do not perceive it. The vast majority of stars in the night sky are invisible to us.They have color all the same.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun you are not understanding what i mean. when i say pink i am talking about "pink" the concept not "pink" the word. the concept we label P-i-n-k could have just as easily been the interpretation for the electromagnetic frequency that we interperate as blue
the 1st organism to see in colour would have 1st had to discover electromagnetic radiation, then it needed some way to make use of the information so it invented colour
there is just energy and it moves in an oscilating motion. no colour
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82
I understand what you mean. What you mean is wrong.
The concept of pink could not be color of blue. The concept of pink reflects the share of our experiences with things that reflect the color of pink, and our use of the language. If you associated the concept of pink with things that reflect the color blue, you have not formed a concept of pink but a concept of blue, and you have mislearned the language you name it in.
Jellyfish did not discover EM.
That frequency IS color.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun im not saying we rename it. im not talking about the sounds we use to label colours, im talking about that image you see in your mind when you percieve light. the image in your miund that you call pink could have been a different image, it could have been the image we call blue.
in a universe with no minds, there is no colour. colour is an illusion, just like sound. in external reality there are little gas molecules we call air and these molecules can form waves, sound is in your mind
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82
I know what you're saying.
You're wrong. What you have said does not in any way refute nor weaken my statements. In a universe with no minds there is still color, just nothing to name or notice it. The image in your mind "of pink" matches the "pink things" you are told by language "are pink".
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun you dont know what i am saying, this has nothing to do with language. colour is a mental construct
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82
That's what you've been saying. You are wrong.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun you do realise that your perception of reality is not true reality, only a vague representaion of it.
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82
Sorry, I live in the real world. When you want to retreat to a world where I may or may not have defeated your argument based on how you feel about it, it's not a good case. In the real world, we kick rocks and they move. I don't buy solipsism as an argument in any form.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun 1st rule of debate, know your opponents argument. im not arguing for solopsism. i beleive reality is indapendant of our minds. reality has no colour. our INTERPRETATION of reality is not reality itself, it is a representation of reality. it is not a representation of how the world actually is, but an interpretation that is the most beneficial to our survival. it has nothing to do with solopsism. i believe the electro magnetic radiation is objective reality colour is its representaion
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82
Yes, you keep saying that without any support and your assertion is still wrong. In the same way a moving photon is electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetic radiation has a frequency, and that frequency IS a color. You may need to consult a chart of the visible spectrum.
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun "electromagnetic radiation has a frequency, and that frequency IS a color." not untill that electromagnetic radiation has been percieved and interpreted by a mind
robertwc82 1 year ago
@rkyeun It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
– Lewis, 18
Even to apply his omniscience to being able to do even the logically impossible, is impossible to disprove or to even discuss. I'm not sure why you dissected my illiterate deductive argument.. thats what i was trying to show.
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@FaerieStories
Also God appreciates our finite perspective of existence, and relates to us in an according manner. So you cant really challenge the emotions he expresses to relate.
Grant the following premise:
When God created mankind with free- will. He had to come to accept that some people would be forever lost to sin and evil. Similar to the multiple worlds theory... God could have created the existence with an ideal amount of evil to bring the maximum amount of people to know him.
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@FaerieStories Ecclesiastes 11:5
5As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
imthemandawg 1 year ago
@christlover3000 You are not understanding the proposition. If God can change it´s mind and decide to lift a bolder, then he is able to lift the bolder any time, so he is just pretending not be able to. Let´s rephrase to make it clear: Can God create something so heavy that he can´t lift, even if he changes his mind in the future?
lfzadra 1 year ago
@christlover3000 Ok let me ask you the question in a different way. Can god create a triangular circle?
STDSkating 1 year ago
@STDSkating that's a really dumb question to be asking someone sure if he wanted to he probably could hes God he can change the laws of physics then so can he change the laws of logic as well you simply can't use logic when it comes to God because he created logic in the first place.
totheword3000 1 year ago
Things that are massive aren't always big..
Ever heard of a neutron star?
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
And actually, let me just correct myself here so you don't get confused by my mistake:
When I say that things aren't heavy in space, I mean that they don't cause strain on your arms.. Or "lifting" as you so childishly love to say it..
But heavy/massive things are still heavy/massive in space in the sense that they are hard to move.. The earth is evident of that.. It's a heavy/massive thing that is heavy/massive even though it's in space..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel Weight isn't constant, so there could be time and/or place that it's hard or easy to move. If you just have Earth with no orbit, no gravatational pull, no atmosphere, no nothing (you know what I mean), the "weight" will change, and if you can survive in space, you'll be able to move it.
FireStormBaller 1 year ago