NationStates Jolt Archive

Before all of you bible hugging, church going fanatics get all over my case, can I ask you if you think god is omnipotent? ( Omnipotence: the ability to do anything and everything)

If you said yes, then you can put this in your pipe and smoke it...

Can one who is omnipotent microwave a frozen burrito so hot, that even he/she/it cannot eat it? If he/she/it can, then they will not be able to consume this burrito, therefore disproving this higher being's omnipotence. Also, if they were to eat this burrito, they had not made a burrito so hot, and until they make this burrito, that is one thing they cannot do. If this mighty one cannot microwave this super burrito, then they themself are not omnipotent, as this is something that they cannot do.

This situation works many times over, such as, can they create a boulder so heavy that they themselves cannot lift it? you see, there are almost endless possibilities of things this omnipotent lord cannot and will not be able to do.

Sorry to everone who thinks that your lord is omnipotent, he/she/it isn't...

( The idea of omnipotence-> :eek: :mp5: <-microwaveable burrito )

You can expand this argument to include the Omnipotence / Omnibenevolence / Existance of evil questions as well.

I.e. If deity is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (all-loving), why did he create a universe where evil exists?

You can expand this argument to include the Omnipotence / Omnibenevolence / Existance of evil questions as well.

I.e. If deity is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (all-loving), why did he create a universe where evil exists?

This will bring in the "God gave us free will" argument, even though that has nothing to do with evil. :rolleyes:

nobody ever said that god was all loving (i.e. crusades, plagues, spanish inquisition, birth of George W. Bush) but, very good point

nobody ever said that god was all loving (i.e. crusades, plagues, spanish inquisition, birth of George W. Bush) but, very good point

Actually, if you are speaking of the Christian God, then yes, he is supposed to be omnibenevolent. It is one of the core tenets of the religion. "For God so loved the world..."

This will bring in the "God gave us free will" argument, even though that has nothing to do with evil. :rolleyes:

Whether we have free will or not is irrelevant. If the Christian God was truly omnibenevolent, then why would He create a universe where the existance of evil was even possible?

Wow... as melon-scratchers go, that's a honey-doodle.

Are we talking about christian god?

Well... Let's say that God is Omnipotent. This means that he/she is also omnipresent (always present everywhere) and omnicognigant (knows everything). If this is true, this means that christian god is cruel. Why? Because he KNEW what would happen when he/she created man and woman and the tree with all the good and bad knowledge. He also SAW this thing happening. There for, he wanted human kind to have sin and wanted to cast them out from paradise at the first place. Makes you think, no? Is the christian God truly a bastard who puts bricks under a hat and waits in the bushes for someone to come and kick the hat? Either that or he ain't omnipotent.

Oh, the microwave example is always good, but it's too bad hit under the belt, so christians will just burn you as a satan worshipper and pass a law in the US that bans using microwave ovens.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

:rolleyes:

Infinite regression.

Arguing for the concept of Omnipotence, is the fact that it means all powerful. That is, infinitely powerful. No limits to it's power or being or even existence.

The old attempted refutation by asking such question since the being cannot do something "past infinity" (note illogical concept, since infinity encompases all) that they therefore are not infinite.

The argument is known as an Reductio Ad Absurdum (Reduction to the impossible or absurd).

First of all, the argument relies on contradictory premises.

First, it established an incorrect definition of "omnipotence".

Second, it defines a relative concept within the finite to the operations of the infinite. Within the scope of the infinite, there is no "too hot", "too heavy", "too large", "too (anything)". Since the Omni- encompases "all", that is the infinite, all that exists; therefore nothing exists outside of it. So in answer to the second premise and question; the answer is no, he cannot; but, the cannot exists as the infinite aspect that there is no such thing as "too hot" from the infinite expression. The question asked is improper to the context of the established clause; which is in refference to the infinite, that is the aspect of the omni, the all.

The operator of the premise then reaches his conclusion that since this cannot be done; not from the refutation of the infinite aspect, but because he cannot maintain consistency of language and thought through his establishing clause and question. The conclusion, as you see, is false.

The Omnipotent would be able, in lieu of their very being as infinite, create anything to which they can; eat, regardless of temperature; lift, regardless of weight; and so forth. Since there is no logical "beyond" in relation to the infinite.

Well, by a nice circular definition, if a God exists as defined by the Christian faiths, he is therefore Omnipotent. Go Him. Other religions are ok with their gods being less so. Guess it made them more human or somesuch, plus they didn't have soap operas, so they got to make up stories about who Zeus was boinking *this* time, and what animal he happened to be at the time..

As far as the burrito thing goes, it's actually rather easy if you simply assume that God can change things to have his way. Being omnipotent is like that.

Let's assume that God's burrito-tolerance is Infinite, given his omnipotence. He is then able to craft a burrito that exceeds that tolerance, at Infinity-plus-one. He is then able to simply change his own tolerance to Infinity-plus-two, and chows down.

That or he just waits for it to cool down a bit.

(edit)

Actually, there are a lot of different definitions of Infinity, and it depends mostly who you talk to. It is important to determine if it is a description of: a: Really really huge, but finite number you don't feel like counting (number of stars in the universe), b: an ever-expanding quantity (digits of Pi), c: all such quantities, as they currently exist (Everything that is), or d: the maximum limits for all such quantities, even those that do not exist (everything that *can* be).

Again, an omnipotent God would be able to change the rules, and would hardly be limited by our crude perceptions of the universe.

Or the universe, for that matter.

Well, by a nice circular definition, if a God exists as defined by the Christian faiths, he is therefore Omnipotent. Go Him. Other religions are ok with their gods being less so. Guess it made them more human or somesuch, plus they didn't have soap operas, so they got to make up stories about who Zeus was boinking *this* time, and what animal he happened to be at the time..

As far as the burrito thing goes, it's actually rather easy if you simply assume that God can change things to have his way. Being omnipotent is like that.

Let's assume that God's burrito-tolerance is Infinite, given his omnipotence. He is then able to craft a burrito that exceeds that tolerance, at Infinity-plus-one. He is then able to simply change his own tolerance to Infinity-plus-two, and chows down.

That or he just waits for it to cool down a bit.

Of course, though, infinity plus one is still infinity. as well as plus two, plus three.... There is no plus in relation to it. So the idea of their being a plus is beyond th scope of the language in relation to the infinite.

Most of this comes from the lack of the limited mental capacity of humans to grasp the infinite, except as a dis-connected concept.

The argument flows from this; in that the protestor limits infinity into his own terms; and then objects to infinity because it surpases his own terms. Thus he Establishes infinity as a concept.... Limits the scope of infinity in the relative expression of the finite; then discovers ways in which this finite concepualization of the infinite does not follow through. The error comes in his alteration of the subject matter in mid-thought. Resulting in an incorrect assumption. This happens the moment he applies a finite concept of limited criteria (too hot, too heavy, etc.); after establishing the premise of infinity. When the relative term shows the impossibility; the assumption the author falls to, is that the being cannot be infinite. But remember, the being did not fail this test, the author altered the scope of the test in mid-stream. Limiting the infinites capabilities to only the finite, and then discovers that his limitation leads to a limitation upon his premise of the infinite. This however does not show the error of omnipotence; it shows the error of the authors test. Because his question in itself, contradicts his own established premise. Therefore the question must be an incorrect one to ask.

Actually, infinity-plus-one does *not* equal infinity. Ask a mathemetician. Just be prepared not to understand it without a few years reading boring books. They have ways of dealing with such things that the average layperson can't grasp mentally, and so the 'common' definition of Infinity is usually just 'X=X+1' ad nauseum. Trust me though, you can do things with Infinity that you can do with any other number. Add, subtract, multiply, even raise Infinity to the Infinitieth power. It still works.

Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall,
aleph-null bottles of beer.
Take one down, pass it around...
Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall.

Physics and Theology are different things for a reason. They don't play well ogether, and someone always winds up crying with a black eye.

Within the realm we are talking here in relation to an Omnipotent; that is all powerful; infinite being.... Is as it is. ALL, everything. In the literal sense.

I essence the author:

1. established God as infinite.
2. defines a set of finite criteria that a finite being cannot surpass; but considers this finite idea "infinite".
3. Concludes that the finite being he established through 2 cannot be infinite.

But he never actually directly addresses the Infinite Being in Establishatory Clause 1. That is the infinite being, to which there can be nothing beyond (The being that is "ALL").

The same sort of Ad Absurdum is made when asserting that "If God is ALL, then what is beyond him." The second clause of the sentence asking the question is contradictory to the first clause. Because it establishes the ALL, and then seeks something outside of ALL. Since ALL encompases everything, the second clause is a result of the author not understanding what he esablished in the first place. That is, if you actually grasp the idea of "ALL", then you won't continue into the second clause.

These same logical errors occur in defining God's own realms of existance. Once established as infinite, the thought of infinity attribute must be consistent throughout the context of your reasonings. Existing as an infinite, his realm of existance is infinite; this is boundless; which would encompass his ocupation of all dimentions (infinite dimentions of existance). Some ask questions such as "then who created God?" Such questions lack the grasping of the conceptualization of infinite existance as well. God exists, existing infnitely places him beyond time.... that is timeless.... In a realm where time is no more an expression than length, or depth. No beginning, no end, a concept of ever-presence (that is all of time occurs in the present). Such ideas boggle our pathetic human minds.... But must be handled consistently thought our reasonings of this concept of existance in the infinite. This of course is hard for us, relying so much on this concept of finite time, finite existance and finite understandings... Even trying to convey meager understandings of the timeless is beyond our own language capabilities. I'd imagine some of you can see the problems as such... This aspect of course flows in the concept of Omni-present.... that is all present, infinitely present in all aspects.... a criterion of the timeless infinite being, and an attribute of the absolute. Both of these aspects and attributes also flowing into the omniscience, that is the all knowing, or infinitely knowing aspect... Existing timeless, infinitely-present in all aspects, where the temporal concepts of past and future do not exist, and where movement becomes meaningless in the occupation of the all; that is the very realm of the infinite; and in possession of infinite power and attribute in realm and existance... He would logically possess knowledge of the all, the infinite, everything.

So the three attributes are interconnected an inter-reliant: being that they are merely aspects of infinity.

You make an excellent point for that type of example.
However, in a slightly more directly geared examples regarding the omnipotence and such of the Christian god..

If God is omnipotent, then he can do all things.
(Making refrence to other "omni-positions" of God and the quote posted above)--

If God can do all things, he can abolish suffering and all things not of him (i.e., sin and evil).

If God is omnibenevolent, he would make it so his people would not suffer.

One could say God is omnipotent, he then would then have the ability to know all thing in an eternal nature (i.e., things have have happened, are happening, and will happen). He is then, by deffinition, omniscient. If this were true, then in his creation of man, he knew that evil and suffering would enter the world.
(The act in itself seemingly then NOT out of love.)


So.. Perhaps just in my opinion, but logical conclusions nevertheless..

If God is omniscient, he is not omnibenevolent, otherwise we would not have been created.

If God is omnibenevolent, he is then NOT omniscient, and hence, NOT omnipotnent. Again, we would not have been created and allowed to bring suffering upon ourselves.

If God is omnibenvolent and omniscient, then he's an jackass who goes against his own nature.

If God is omnipotent, then he would not have needed Jesus. Ergo, there would be no Christianity.

Lastly, though this support omnipotence..
God is omnipotent and omniscient; He is not omnibenevolent.
1. There would be no need for us to be created. If God is omnipotent, he needs no help to do anything. He wasn't alone in Heaven. It seems, after thinking about it, he would have to had known man would fall, otherwise, our creation would be totally and utterly pointless. God is not omnibenevolent in his own try sense of "love."
2. God's still a jackass. The only reason we would be created would be to give back to God. Why, though, would Mr. High and Mighty need to be given back something? Do I detect a little bit of pride perhaps? God clearly shares with the world that he's jealous (Ex. 20:5.. give or take a verse #). Do my reading abilities deceive me?
3. In conclusion. If God is truly omnipotent, he's a dick. If God is not omnipotent, then he's not such a bad guy.

----
Problems X-ians would have with my arguements:
-I'm defining love as a "human" concept and not the the true nature of "love."

Actually, infinity-plus-one does *not* equal infinity. Ask a mathemetician. Just be prepared not to understand it without a few years reading boring books. They have ways of dealing with such things that the average layperson can't grasp mentally, and so the 'common' definition of Infinity is usually just 'X=X+1' ad nauseum. Trust me though, you can do things with Infinity that you can do with any other number. Add, subtract, multiply, even raise Infinity to the Infinitieth power. It still works.

Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall,
aleph-null bottles of beer.
Take one down, pass it around...
Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall.

Physics and Theology are different things for a reason. They don't play well ogether, and someone always winds up crying with a black eye.

That's because mathmeticians don't deal with infinity. They consider it a large finite value. I'm not dealing with their limitations of mind. But rather the actuality of infinite concept. Within such conceptual infinity, +1 is a meaningless term, since the +1 already exists in the ALL of infinity.

This topic can illicit endless discussion for many reasons:
1. It falls under the loose topic of religion. No further explanation needed.
2. 'Anti-religious'- a crude term which shall suffice- people limit their arguments to 'anti-religious' rules, where 'pro-religious' people tend to be more open minded, and let's face it, both of the groups as adamant and blindly stubborn as each other.

These topics will always exist, because people believe.

That's not true. Mathematics treats infinity as infinity.

Two examples:

The lim as x->0 of f(x)=1/x is infinity because there is no finite answer as the curve get infinitly closer without ever crossing x=0. (technically, either +/- infinity depending on the side you're comming from)

1 raised to the infinith power can not be computed.

Furthermore, infinity is math does not stand for any value at all. It is used to represent numbers as they infinitely grow, never an exact (finite) value.. the do not cease to increase.

Maybe he can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it himself. But then he could create a crane that could lift it and all would be right in the universe once again.

To state abit more in depth, Mathmeticians deal with infinite sets.... That is an infinite regression in seperate sets, conceptualized inter-relation of the sets to one another. However, here we are not dealing with infinite sets, but rather the infinite itself. The set which contains all of everything. Not merely a single facet of the infinite.

IOW:
There are an infinite regression of numbers between 1 and 2
There is also an infinite regression of numbers between 1 and 3.

The second infinite regression is 2 times the first.

In this case, however, we are not dealing with faceted finite limitations, scoping their infinite numberical regression. But the complete set of all in relation to all. That is PURE INFINITY.... That is that which is all. And as such, there is nothing, in lieu of the all, being outside of it.

Since God is a concept and cannot be proven, any omnipotence attribute is also a concept.

Then there is still no discrepency between the infinity of which you speak and the mathematical infinity we have both described.

In your example, if the end result is merely infinity, then it incompasses both subsets. There is nothing outside of it, only inside.
To say "in" + "in" = "in" supports that view.

The problem with the God concept is that most put themselves above God and define him. This is a rather silly situation is it not, for definition is by definition limiting.

God lies beyond what many experience, and in an area that pervades all, totally dismissive to the whims of men. Conciousness: something many claim to have but are sadly misled by the anarchy of an undisciplined mind believing their own created worlds are reality.

Sadly those religions originating in Abraham seek only to mislead and control the masses by hiding the truth (for it sets you free), needing others to feed off.

Before all of you bible hugging, church going fanatics get all over my case, can I ask you if you think god is omnipotent? ( Omnipotence: the ability to do anything and everything)

If you said yes, then you can put this in your pipe and smoke it...

Can one who is omnipotent microwave a frozen burrito so hot, that even he/she/it cannot eat it? If he/she/it can, then they will not be able to consume this burrito, therefore disproving this higher being's omnipotence. Also, if they were to eat this burrito, they had not made a burrito so hot, and until they make this burrito, that is one thing they cannot do. If this mighty one cannot microwave this super burrito, then they themself are not omnipotent, as this is something that they cannot do.

This situation works many times over, such as, can they create a boulder so heavy that they themselves cannot lift it? you see, there are almost endless possibilities of things this omnipotent lord cannot and will not be able to do.

Sorry to everone who thinks that your lord is omnipotent, he/she/it isn't...

( The idea of omnipotence-> :eek: :mp5: <-microwaveable burrito )

Please. The smug bombast is hardly warranted by the fact that you happen to have stumbled across an argument that's been doing the rounds for a few centuries and has many persuasive counter-arguments. If you must recycle age old paradoxes I advise you to do so in a less arrogant manner.

Actually, infinity-plus-one does *not* equal infinity. Ask a mathemetician. Just be prepared not to understand it without a few years reading boring books.
actually, I'm not a mathemetician but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as infinity + 1. This is because infinity is NOT a # or has a numerical value so infinity +1 is still infinity.

Actually, the bible itself tends to argue that the christian god doesn't possess the standard list of "perfections" that have been applied to him for the last few centuries at least.

Omnipotence - there's a place in the bible that says something to the effect of "he captured the mountain, for god was with him, but he could not take the plains for thay had iron chariots" - which can be interpreted as being "the iron chariots kept god from being much use". i'm pretty sure there were a few others that implied there were restrictions.

Omniscience - omniscience could have prevented the entire apple thing. not to mention quite a few other situations that don't seem to have gone as planned. there was also something about god putting up rainbows to remind himself not to wipe out humanity again. which seems to imply he can forget.

Omnibenevelence - if he's omnipotent and omniscient, then being all-good is obviously faulty, as the world is chock full of pain and suffering. the very fact that pain and suffering exist at all supplies some evidence of this. further, god himself says, in the bible, with some regularlity "i am a jealous god". jealousy does tend to be considered a personality flaw - and if god is, as is commonly claimed, the only god, being jealous of non-existant rivals is somewhat silly. also, anyone who's main claim to fame can be summed up as "obey my every command, regardless of whether you're even aware it or i exist, or spend an eternity in pain" would seem to also argue somewhat against omnibenevalence.

There's also arguements regarding most of the other standard "perfections" ascribed to him, but I'm too tired to be able to think of them at the moment.

By weakening the statements to things like "god is more powerfull than anyone or anything else is capable of being", "god knows more than anyone is capable of knowing", "god loves people, but has a bit of a jealous temper", etc. and you not only eliminate most of the logical paradoxes, but, if you weaken them the right way, can get pretty close to the guy described in the bible.

Actually, in most cases, the big sticking point from a logical perspective is omnibenevalence. If he's all-good, then he can't have the other perfections, or the world would be differant. If, however, he has the others, then he can't be all good, or again, the world would be differant. The usual counter arguments to this are generally fairly weak, which is why the evil thing is about the most common attack on the perfection of god.

Just on a side note - though occasionally people use some of these, or similar, arguments to try and attack the existance of god, none of them can do such. The most ANY logical argument can ever do is display that specific beliefs about god do or do not make sense.

Oh, and a side note: Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible. ie. an omnipotent god can't create a boulder too big for him to lift, as the concept itself makes no sense. he could, however, create a boulder of absolutely infinite mass, and lift it.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/rock.html

actually, I'm not a mathemetician but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as infinity + 1. This is because infinity is NOT a # or has a numerical value so infinity +1 is still infinity.

infinity +1 = it's like an normal infinity, except it's easier to use in a fight, inflicts more damage, and can hurt monsters that would shrug off the usual variety.

Knowledge is power...

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely...

God is all knowing...

.: Therefore .:

God is absolutely corrupt!

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/rock.html

I find it amusing that the symbol chosen for atheism is the closest thing there is to a religious symbol for Zen Buddhism.

Also, to those refuting the rock problem, you assume that the universe is logical by nature. If the universe isn't completely and utterly conformed to a logic, then the question becomes viable. If you say that the universe is logical in its containing everything aspect then you cannot disprove the illogical statements, because they are part of the universe and therefore logical.

The question exists and is therefore logical.

-or-

The question does not exist and we're all crazy.

FNORD!

Well, some aspects deal with incompatible terminologies.

In the theological expression "God is good" rests within the concept of God being the pure definition of "good"; that is, all that He does is "good".

More or less it's the equivalent of saying "good" is what God says it is; and "evil" is anything else.

As such, arguing philosophically, being that we're not dealing with humanism, but rather a system of theism; there's no counter point.

Most of my versage lies in Reformed Theology; and as such will only deal within that realm of theistic philosophy, as opposed to much of the ramblings of the evangelicals (who are the frequent spouters of 'theology').

Reformed Theology addresses that evil occurs by the will of God. Which is opposed to the more duelistic theologies of present-day evangelism. And proceeds in the matter as His own will of good. "Satan" is an agent of God as much as any other "angel"; but in the sense, Satan's acts, even being willed by God, are done by different motivations. More or less, the entirety of the theology delves deeper into the relation between sense, nature, and will than most others.

An indepth analysis of the complete theology of this view would be near impossible in this limited forum. Though I can recommend several books which cover the theology as a whole:

"The Sovereignty of God" by Arthur W. Pink.
"The Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin
"Reprobate Asserters" by John Bunyan
"The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther
"All of Grace" Charles Haddon Spurgeon
"Double Predestination" R.C. Sproul
"Man's Will, God's Will, and Free Will" Horatius Bonar

This stuff will probably be alot harsher than the typical goody-goody evangelical stuff you see on the general internet. But is far more exploratory and detailed in its extrapolations of relationships between the God of the bible and mankind in general. And be prepared to be assaulted with the doctrine of Predestination, and have the entire concept of "free will" re-evaluated and re-defined.

Also, to those refuting the rock problem, you assume that the universe is logical by nature. If the universe isn't completely and utterly conformed to a logic, then the question becomes viable. If you say that the universe is logical in its containing everything aspect then you cannot disprove the illogical statements, because they are part of the universe and therefore logical.

The question exists and is therefore logical.

-or-

The question does not exist and we're all crazy.

FNORD!

Mind you, if the rules of logic don't apply, then everybody is crazy anyways. Logic, for the most part, doesn't have anything to do with reality directly. Logic is about the interrelationship of ideas. Our ideas are all we really have to go on regarding reality (some argue that they are reality, but that's too much to go into).

Basicly logic is the rules that keep you from saying things like "jane is a married bachelor". Or rather, you can say it, but it has as much meaning as "tree dachshund widget at" or "qwhkj sdhwkew rysitw sdf".

So, really, if logic doesn't apply, then nothing anyone says or thinks has any meaning whatsoever, and I can safely ignore your argument. ;)

Hey, think of higher dimensions.

If you live on a Plane (2-d space) then everything on that plane could be represented as infinity. There is no possible way for anything in your universe (still on the same plane) to become, move towards, or come into contact with something that is not part of everything, because it encompasses everything. And yet, your "infinity" represents absolutely nothing but a division in a Realm (3-d space; i borrowed the term somewhere). Right now, our universe is in a realm. There is no possible way for anything in our universe (the realm) to become, move towards, or come into contact with something that is not part of everything, because it encompasses everything. But hey, if we can find a 4-dimensional space (tetraspace), then our 3-d realm is nothing but a dividing line in tetraspace. But we cannot find tetraspace, because it is outside of "everything"... at least for us, in our universe. ;)

And God must exist in a higher dimension.

Food for thought.

Well if you're ignoring my arguement, I'm ignoring yours, and I'm naming my son Jane. I hope you're happy with the chain of events you've set in motion.

*walks to shelf*
*picks up Holy Bible New Revised Standard Version*
*flips to page 229, Judges: 10:11-14 and thus reads*

"And the LORD said to the Israelites, "Did I not deliver you from the Egyptians and teh from the Amorites, from the ammonites and from the Philisttens? 12The Sidonians also, and the Amalekites, and the Maonites oppressed you; and you cried to me, and I delieveerd you out of their hand. 12 Yet you have abandoned me and worshiped other gods; therefor I will deliver you no more. 14 Go and cry to the gods whom you have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your distress."*

Doesn't sound like a omnibenevolent God to me. Christians/jews make no claim of claim of god being omnibenevolent unless they are ignorant of, well, the entire old testament. God used to be a kickass, knock down your door and take names kinda guy. In the NT he was toned down a bit, but I note that revelations threatens everyone who does not believe in him with eternal damnation... also not omnibenevolent.

Just felt like throwing that out there.

* I should note a few more verses on God goes soft when they throw away the idols and worship him again.

How dare you questioning the omnipotence of G_D the all mighty? The answer to your infidel question is quite simple:

You question the power of G_D, we remain silent for we can not give a satisfactory answer, but burn you an your friends and family on the stake instead. How about that? See G_D is allmighty as long as the true Christians can kill all infidels!

Hey, think of higher dimensions.

If you live on a Plane (2-d space) then everything on that plane could be represented as infinity. There is no possible way for anything in your universe (still on the same plane) to become, move towards, or come into contact with something that is not part of everything, because it encompasses everything. And yet, your "infinity" represents absolutely nothing but a division in a Realm (3-d space; i borrowed the term somewhere). Right now, our universe is in a realm. There is no possible way for anything in our universe (the realm) to become, move towards, or come into contact with something that is not part of everything, because it encompasses everything. But hey, if we can find a 4-dimensional space (tetraspace), then our 3-d realm is nothing but a dividing line in tetraspace. But we cannot find tetraspace, because it is outside of "everything"... at least for us, in our universe. ;)

And God must exist in a higher dimension.

Food for thought.

I think we've yet to discover whether or not the universe (as we know it) is finite or infinite so the 3-d space (as we know it) might actually have a set mass and volume.
We know of the 3 dimensions yet do not know of a fifth (fourth is often considered time). Does another dimension exist? perhaps. But there is no proof of such a dimension and, by your own argument, we could NEVER find proof of it.
Same is for god. *IF* god exists in this universe (if we someday find him out there) then he is bound by the laws of this universe because he cannot exist in another dimension (making him un-omnipotent). If he doesn't exist in our 3-d universe, then we could NEVER know for certain if he exists or doesn't exist because he is outside of our 3-d universe.
So the question of whether or not an omnipotent god exists is unanswerable (which is the stance I take).

If we ever found a god (like the old testiment one) in our 3-d universe, I think our encounter would go something like this (tongue in cheek christians):rolleyes:

Kirk: Excuse me.. excuse me, I'd.. just like to ask a question... what does
God need with a Starship?

God: Bring the ship closer

Kirk: I said.. what does *God* need with a starship?

McCoy: Jim.. what are you doing?

Kirk: I'm asking him a question

God: Who is this... creature?

Kirk: Who am I? Don't you know? Aren't you God?

Sybok: He.. has his doubts

God: you doubt me?

Kirk: I seek proof

McCoy: Jim.. you don't ask the almight for his ID!

God: Then here is the proof you seek

(God lightning blasts kirk sending him flying.. McCoy goes to help and helps
Kirk up)

Kirk: Why is God angry?

Sybok: Why? Why have you done this to my friend?

God: He doubts me

Spock: You have not answered his question.. what does God need with a starship?

(Spock gets a lightning bolt)

God (to McCoy, who's helping Spock up): do you doubt me?

McCoy: I doubt any God who.. inflicts pain.. for his own pleasure..

-from Star Trek 5: The Final Frontier

ooh star trek! i saw that one once, like 3 years ago. it was cool...

:mp5: :headbang:

Here is a better question
Can God Pose a Theological Paradox so Paradoxical that even he cannot set it correct?

Theological querries are liek playing Russian Roulette, even Christopher Walken looses eventually, but I have this to say, if God Isn't Omnipotent, then he does a pretty good job at faking it, if he is, then hey, he is.

Here is a better question
Can God Pose a Theological Paradox so Paradoxical that even he cannot set it correct?

Theological querries are liek playing Russian Roulette, even Christopher Walken looses eventually, but I have this to say, if God Isn't Omnipotent, then he does a pretty good job at faking it, if he is, then hey, he is.

I have yet to witness this omnipotence that you alleged that God might be good at faking, I have yet to see any sort of cosmic trickery, but I do have to admit sometimes I am utterly amazed at the gullibility of masses and utter stupidity of those they hold in authority and often I can't believe my own senses. If God is the cosmic con-man you say he is , then he is not very good at it. Cosmic joker maybe.

A burito too hot for god to eat is a logical contradiction
- it is
" a burito so hot that a being who can eat anything cannot eat it"

but this is a logical contradiction- like the idea of a square circle , the burito too hot 4 god could not even POSSIBLY exist, or the thing reffered to as god could imidiately be made more "potent" in that he can eat the burito. Could got create A SQUARE CIRCLE?

But if deity truly is all powerful, then he himself is nessassary and more powerful than logic,- such a being greater than which nothing can be thought would be so great that his existance would not rely on logic. so that, it would be impossible to (prove OR) disprove such a being by logic...

of course can a being by which nothing greater can be thought be even comprehended by the human mind, and if not how can we disprove the existance of such a being?

I have yet to witness this omnipotence that you alleged that God might be good at faking, I have yet to see any sort of cosmic trickery, but I do have to admit sometimes I am utterly amazed at the gullibility of masses and utter stupidity of those they hold in authority and often I can't believe my own senses. If God is the cosmic con-man you say he is , then he is not very good at it. Cosmic joker maybe.

You've never witnessed darkness either, but you still know that it exists.

*walks to shelf*
*picks up Holy Bible New Revised Standard Version*
*flips to page 229, Judges: 10:11-14 and thus reads*

"And the LORD said to the Israelites, "Did I not deliver you from the Egyptians and teh from the Amorites, from the ammonites and from the Philisttens? 12The Sidonians also, and the Amalekites, and the Maonites oppressed you; and you cried to me, and I delieveerd you out of their hand. 12 Yet you have abandoned me and worshiped other gods; therefor I will deliver you no more. 14 Go and cry to the gods whom you have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your distress."*

Doesn't sound like a omnibenevolent God to me. Christians/jews make no claim of claim of god being omnibenevolent unless they are ignorant of, well, the entire old testament. God used to be a kickass, knock down your door and take names kinda guy. In the NT he was toned down a bit, but I note that revelations threatens everyone who does not believe in him with eternal damnation... also not omnibenevolent.

Just felt like throwing that out there.

* I should note a few more verses on God goes soft when they throw away the idols and worship him again.


ahh- but he is also perfectly just

Also, to those refuting the rock problem, you assume that the universe is logical by nature. If the universe isn't completely and utterly conformed to a logic, then the question becomes viable. If you say that the universe is logical in its containing everything aspect then you cannot disprove the illogical statements, because they are part of the universe and therefore logical.

The question exists and is therefore logical.

-or-

The question does not exist and we're all crazy.

FNORD!

Depends on whether one would argue that concepts exist within the universe. Interesting point, though, and one that could maybe be extended to use against those who argue for the realism of universals.

Before all of you bible hugging, church going fanatics get all over my case, can I ask you if you think god is omnipotent? ( Omnipotence: the ability to do anything and everything)

If you said yes, then you can put this in your pipe and smoke it...

Can one who is omnipotent microwave a frozen burrito so hot, that even he/she/it cannot eat it? If he/she/it can, then they will not be able to consume this burrito, therefore disproving this higher being's omnipotence. Also, if they were to eat this burrito, they had not made a burrito so hot, and until they make this burrito, that is one thing they cannot do. If this mighty one cannot microwave this super burrito, then they themself are not omnipotent, as this is something that they cannot do.

This situation works many times over, such as, can they create a boulder so heavy that they themselves cannot lift it? you see, there are almost endless possibilities of things this omnipotent lord cannot and will not be able to do.

Sorry to everone who thinks that your lord is omnipotent, he/she/it isn't...

( The idea of omnipotence-> :eek: :mp5: <-microwaveable burrito )


My only question is this:

What's with the childish tone of your post? I can almost envision you, pointing a finger at your monitor, wagging your ass, and saying, "neener neener neeener". What the hell?

You've never witnessed darkness either, but you still know that it exists.

I see darkness all the time. It's there whenever i close my eyes, turn off my lights, etc. Bad example.

Good example: You ever see Mongolia? Most people haven't. Yet most people are perfectly willing to believe it exists.

I think we've yet to discover whether or not the universe (as we know it) is finite or infinite so the 3-d space (as we know it) might actually have a set mass and volume.
We know of the 3 dimensions yet do not know of a fifth (fourth is often considered time). Does another dimension exist? perhaps. But there is no proof of such a dimension and, by your own argument, we could NEVER find proof of it.
Same is for god. *IF* god exists in this universe (if we someday find him out there) then he is bound by the laws of this universe because he cannot exist in another dimension (making him un-omnipotent). If he doesn't exist in our 3-d universe, then we could NEVER know for certain if he exists or doesn't exist because he is outside of our 3-d universe.
So the question of whether or not an omnipotent god exists is unanswerable (which is the stance I take).

Actually, both of your logics are faulty. It's easy to determine the existance of things that operate on additional dimentions, if they are capable of interacting with the things that make up your reality...

In quantum physics, as I recall, there is currently a stated minimum of 6 dimensions required to account for all all the things they've observed. I've heard higher numbers thrown around, but 6 was the one used in the most reliable source.

EDIT: mind you, learning much about them is a pain.

Are we talking about christian god?

Well... Let's say that God is Omnipotent. This means that he/she is also omnipresent (always present everywhere) and omnicognigant (knows everything). If this is true, this means that christian god is cruel. Why? Because he KNEW what would happen when he/she created man and woman and the tree with all the good and bad knowledge. He also SAW this thing happening. There for, he wanted human kind to have sin and wanted to cast them out from paradise at the first place. Makes you think, no? Is the christian God truly a bastard who puts bricks under a hat and waits in the bushes for someone to come and kick the hat? Either that or he ain't omnipotent.

Oh, the microwave example is always good, but it's too bad hit under the belt, so christians will just burn you as a satan worshipper and pass a law in the US that bans using microwave ovens.


We all know how it happened: god creates human and places a tree in the middle of paradise, tells human not to touch it, and then hides in a nearby bush... and waits... That is pervers, I say.

We all know how it happened: god creates human and places a tree in the middle of paradise, tells human not to touch it, and then hides in a nearby bush... and waits... That is pervers, I say.

It was the humans which hid in the nearby Bush, not God; after they ate the fruit.

However, God is good.

The fall happened and proceeded from the will of God, and therefore the fall was for good, in the long run.

---

Evangelicals believe in a different God than I do. Their God is weak, wants good; but cannot always accomplish it. Needs man to help him bring good. My God works out all things in accordance with His will, to which all which occurs happens within the good Will of God. Man is an agent, but not a helper. He acts in accordance within the hidden purpose and ultimate good will of God. And that all things happen within His will of purpose. Trust me, your average Evangelic most likely will not like the Omnipotent God anymore than the average Atheist.... Both of them think from their depraved view of God to which they are master of their own fate; and not merely subjects of the almighty's will and purpose.

Maybe god's a "libertarian" and doesnt want to interfere in people's lives on earth? Perhaps he/she/it believes in freedom of choice and personal responsibility or something like that? I don't know, doesnt matter to me, don't really care. just my2bob. *awaits to be chastised by both sides for speaking such heresey*

It was the humans which hid in the nearby Bush, not God; after they ate the fruit.

However, God is good.

The fall happened and proceeded from the will of God, and therefore the fall was for good, in the long run.


Damn you, god just wanted to have paradise all to himself.

Damn you, god just wanted to have paradise all to himself.

TULIP's a bitch.

Before all of you bible hugging, church going fanatics get all over my case, can I ask you if you think god is omnipotent? ( Omnipotence: the ability to do anything and everything)

If you said yes, then you can put this in your pipe and smoke it...

Can one who is omnipotent microwave a frozen burrito so hot, that even he/she/it cannot eat it? If he/she/it can, then they will not be able to consume this burrito, therefore disproving this higher being's omnipotence. Also, if they were to eat this burrito, they had not made a burrito so hot, and until they make this burrito, that is one thing they cannot do. If this mighty one cannot microwave this super burrito, then they themself are not omnipotent, as this is something that they cannot do.

This situation works many times over, such as, can they create a boulder so heavy that they themselves cannot lift it? you see, there are almost endless possibilities of things this omnipotent lord cannot and will not be able to do.

Your question is illogical. You are essentially asking if God can be limited by His unlimited power?

Just because God can do everything doesn't mean He should.
It is my belief that if there is a God, He/She/It surpasses all human understanding, and that good can come out of evil.
I do not claim that I've had a horrible, terrible life, but I've been through some heavy situations (being gang-raped, having an alcoholic mother, ect) and I don't consider myself a victim. It really sucks at times, for lack of a better term. But I've come out stronger. I've survived.
Tim O'Brien once wrote about his experience in Vietnam in The Things They Carried:
At its core, perhaps, war is just another name for death, and yet any soldier will tell you, if he tells the truth, that proximity to death brings with it a corresponding proximity to life. After a firefight, there is always the immense pleasure of aliveness. The trees are alive. The grass, the soil- everything. All around you things are purely living, and you among them, and the aliveness makes you tremble. You feel an intense, out-of-the-skin awareness of your living self- your truest self, the human being you want to be and then become by the force of wanting it. In the midst of evil you want to be a good man. You want decency. You want justice and courtesy and human concord, things you never knew you wanted. There is a kind of largeness to it, a kind of godliness. Though it's odd, you're never more alive than when you're almost dead.
I will not to pretend to know the characteristics of God, or if He/She/It even exists. But I would not hold God responsible for the evil that goes on within the world, or think that it somehow diminishes His/Her/Its power .

It was the humans which hid in the nearby Bush, not God; after they ate the fruit.

However, God is good.

The fall happened and proceeded from the will of God, and therefore the fall was for good, in the long run.

---

Evangelicals believe in a different God than I do. Their God is weak, wants good; but cannot always accomplish it. Needs man to help him bring good. My God works out all things in accordance with His will, to which all which occurs happens within the good Will of God. Man is an agent, but not a helper. He acts in accordance within the hidden purpose and ultimate good will of God. And that all things happen within His will of purpose. Trust me, your average Evangelic most likely will not like the Omnipotent God anymore than the average Atheist.... Both of them think from their depraved view of God to which they are master of their own fate; and not merely subjects of the almighty's will and purpose.
So, what is the Bible, then?

The bible describes a god who is the source of all, even evil. A god that send evil, and forces people to do evil things.

The same bible also argues that god is 'good', although that could be a sop to human foible.

But - if the bible is a sop, why is god placating humans?

By very definition, your 'god' would be an evil entity - since he is, not only selfish, but carries out actions of torture purely for his own entertainment.

Example: create a garden, create two people, put them in the garden, put a tree in the garden, allow a talking snake (hell, why not) to lie to the people (without EVER introducing them to the 'concept' of untruth), and then strip all the assets from the people, and sentence them to death.

You argue that your 'God' is above the mechanism of 'man'... so you can't even use the EXCUSE that he was allowing them to develop 'fre-will' - because your 'god' wouldn't NEED them to 'develop' free-will, he would have had to 'give it' to them.

Your question is illogical. You are essentially asking if God can be limited by His unlimited power?

The question isn't illogical, the premise it causes you to create is.

Ultimately, it boils down to a very simple concept, which is that an entity which is defined by infinity, has created an artificial border FOR infinity, since it now limits infinity to it's own capacity.

You've never witnessed darkness either, but you still know that it exists.

So what you are saying is that in order for me to distinguish between the real and the unreal, I have to experience both? Yes, that's really really logical...

God was omnipotent, but he died due to his omnipotence. He created cocaine so good that he couldn't stop snorting it. Then his heart exploded. It was a rock so heavy even god couldn't put it down.

All these replies and no one has mentioned the fact that he ripped this off of Homer Simpson.

God was omnipotent, but he died due to his omnipotence. He created cocaine so good that he couldn't stop snorting it. Then his heart exploded. It was a rock so heavy even god couldn't put it down.

I heard Satan and Buddha tried to stage an intervention for God , but God was being an a-hole and wasn't having anything to do with it, so Satan got like all mad at God because God was thinking more about His Divine cocaine addiction than his children. And then Satan and God got into this fist fight and then Buddha , you know Buddha is always peaceful and stuff got really mad and just like walked away from it all

You can expand this argument to include the Omnipotence / Omnibenevolence / Existance of evil questions as well.

I.e. If deity is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (all-loving), why did he create a universe where evil exists?

The "mysterious ways" argument. Or he lied.

how do you know that evil is really evil?

This will bring in the "God gave us free will" argument, even though that has nothing to do with evil. :rolleyes:

Free will has nothing to do with evil? this is news to me - oh let me guess youre one of those CENSORED that actually thinks everyone is a victim of circumstance and that theyre not really responsible for thier actions.

how do you know that evil is really evil?

Is it true that god said you must not - for on the day of your doing so you will surely die? Why would he put it there if not for you? - it's there for the taking and it will taste good too.

He lied - and they died. All so that he could have his hack at an arguement.
Thats evil - unjustifiable, shortsighted, inconciderate self-interest.

Is it in you? :D

This will bring in the "God gave us free will" argument, even though that has nothing to do with evil. :rolleyes:


No it dosen't answer why evil but is dose answer that we have the choice to make evil in our world were god respects our choice. You see we ceratd evil not god.

I'm pretty sure god can still get it up.

If you said yes, then you can put this in your pipe and smoke it...

Can one who is omnipotent microwave a frozen burrito so hot, that even he/she/it cannot eat it?


...Actually a truly omnipotent God could in fact do both and not be in contrast. Just because our limited minds can't figure out a way to do it doesn't mean someone who has unlimited intelligence could not figure out a way too... besides questions like the rock for instance are in-eligable questions for one reason...

He could certainly make a rock very big... but if he makes it bigger then the planet earth what then would you compare it too weight wise? There is a point where weight lifting no longer has meaning. I'm sure there is an equal arguement for the super hot burrito also.

Speaker Thassaloss Kahn
A Humble Servant of
The Most Serene Republic of Thassaloss

P.S. your theory-----> :mp5: :sniper: <--------- my rebuttal

Infinite regression.

Arguing for the concept of Omnipotence, is the fact that it means all powerful. That is, infinitely powerful. No limits to it's power or being or even existence.

The old attempted refutation by asking such question since the being cannot do something "past infinity" (note illogical concept, since infinity encompases all) that they therefore are not infinite.

The argument is known as an Reductio Ad Absurdum (Reduction to the impossible or absurd).

First of all, the argument relies on contradictory premises.

First, it established an incorrect definition of "omnipotence".

Second, it defines a relative concept within the finite to the operations of the infinite. Within the scope of the infinite, there is no "too hot", "too heavy", "too large", "too (anything)". Since the Omni- encompases "all", that is the infinite, all that exists; therefore nothing exists outside of it. So in answer to the second premise and question; the answer is no, he cannot; but, the cannot exists as the infinite aspect that there is no such thing as "too hot" from the infinite expression. The question asked is improper to the context of the established clause; which is in refference to the infinite, that is the aspect of the omni, the all.

The operator of the premise then reaches his conclusion that since this cannot be done; not from the refutation of the infinite aspect, but because he cannot maintain consistency of language and thought through his establishing clause and question. The conclusion, as you see, is false.

The Omnipotent would be able, in lieu of their very being as infinite, create anything to which they can; eat, regardless of temperature; lift, regardless of weight; and so forth. Since there is no logical "beyond" in relation to the infinite.




Wow, this post is the prettiest pile of shit I have ever seen!!!

I think what he's trying to say is...

if you try to fail and succeed... what did you just do?

there's no way, even if god was infintly powerful, that he could both Heat a boritto to a degree, that he could no longer eat it, and then eat it too. because mayeb he could succeed in the heating prossess, but he would have to cancle out what he just did in order to eat it, he would be stuck in a never ending cycle.

Wow, this post is the prettiest pile of shit I have ever seen!!!
i can't tell if that's a compliment or not

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

:rolleyes:
God is both able and willing.
At least that is what my faith believes.
Also evil is not a substance therefore it cannot cometh.
evil is the adition to perfect harmony, kind of like yin and yang.

If you said yes, then you can put this in your pipe and smoke it...

Can one who is omnipotent microwave a frozen burrito so hot, that even he/she/it cannot eat it?


...Actually a truly omnipotent God could in fact do both and not be in contrast. Just because our limited minds can't figure out a way to do it doesn't mean someone who has unlimited intelligence could not figure out a way too... besides questions like the rock for instance are in-eligable questions for one reason...

He could certainly make a rock very big... but if he makes it bigger then the planet earth what then would you compare it too weight wise? There is a point where weight lifting no longer has meaning. I'm sure there is an equal arguement for the super hot burrito also.

Speaker Thassaloss Kahn
A Humble Servant of
The Most Serene Republic of Thassaloss

P.S. your theory-----> :mp5: :sniper: <--------- my rebuttal
Amen!!