Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
stupidity has been highlighted.Mayhaps replacing "anything" with "everything" skews the argument to a bit more clearer standing?
The paradox of omnipotence.Though, this was the best argument towards that direction that I've heard so far. Nice.
Some argue that omnipotence is flawed by definition. A common example question to point this out is:
Can an omnipotent being create a stone that is so heavy the being cannot lift it?
If he cannot create it, then isn't that a flaw in his omnipotence?
If he can create it, but cannot lift it, then isn't that a flaw in his omnipotence?
The answer is very simple: "Yes he can create it; and no it's not a flaw that he cannot lift it.". The problem is choice again. An omnipotent being surely has the potential to lift any stone, but also the potential to wave his own potential by choice! So the reason he cannot lift the stone then is not because the being was never capable of lifting it, but because he chose so. A variation to the question could then be conceived, where the reason for not being able to lift it is better speculated. More precisely, so the characteristics of the stone is not linked directly to the creator, like: Can an omnipotent being create something that is to heavy to lift even for an (other) omnipotent being? Here the question is unreasonable. The questioner is asking for an object with contradicting characteristics. Asking if omnipotence can make the impossible possible. He might just as well have asked, can an omnipotent being create water that isn't wet, or squared circles. At best, the only thing this question could illustrate is that the existence of two omnipotent beings is problematic since the omnipotence of one would include limiting the other's omnipotence and vice versa.
Except that the means Example breaches into a state of being a deity places "laws" on them in the form omnipotence. Which is a self conflicting "law"In one part, yeah. This self conflicts however, as another requirement is to be able to do anything. Since both are a bit required together to exist as a deity, but the fact is, that the requirements themselves state that they are incompatible. Which is to say, being a true deity is impossible, because being a deity requires not to be a deity and to be a deity, both at once.
In other words, being a god means you can't do certain things or you no longer qualify as a god.
Paint sucks. I try to save and it'll warn me "We suck, the quality will get forgeted." And I'm like "... Did you really just admit you suck? forget off, then."Save as a png rather then a jpg?
Strange, I thought the original intent was beliefs, not religion.
im not trying to convert, I am trying to have a disc about religion with the forum.
if you're deist you're a stupid sissy and should learn that you have to work for yourself.I'm an atheist, and I still disagree due to this statement being judgmental on belief.
That is like saying a triangle can have 4 sides, in order to be God you must go beyond the laws that are subjected to humans and objects.Except that the means Example breaches into a state of being a deity places "laws" on them in the form omnipotence. Which is a self conflicting "law"
if you're too stupid to extract the meaning then i'm saying that i support atheism and that basically only sad sack idiots are deists.I'm an atheist and what is this? Judging character on belief is what it is. Not that's really my thing to be honest.
feels bad man. if you can't handle swearing, don't go on the internet.Nah, it ain't the swearing. It's the lack of any constructive input on the thread at all is all.
do i give a stuff.Such harsh words. Just trying to converse here is all.
you believe in a god you're equally handicapped and will be trampled as such.
Aheh, nah. It's because boredom. Nothing like constant foraging for food to keep us busy anymore so we hd to find something to do involving conflict.
Why do humans argue? To Progress Humanity.
If it can make a wall, can't it climb it's own wall? If God can make it I am pretty sure the creator can climb it.Depends if Example makes it so that they can climb it. If they're able to do "everything", then they cannot design it to be unclimbable to themself, wheras a simple engineer could make a really tall wall which they can't really climb themselves.
The Wall that is unclimbable, is only unclimbable for things lesser than God. If something is greater Than God, than that would mean something would have to be greater than infinity.So then then Example is unable to make a wall it cannot climb, despite/since being able to do anything.
I'm pretty sure Deism does not have a universal book.I'll agree there though. Deism is a bit of a broad applying belief just as Apatheism and Atheism are. It all just depends on the person.
Also, that situation pertains to the question, "Can a god that can do anything, such as climb any wall and make any type of wall, make a wall that it itself cannot climb?"And you beat me to it.
