All Powerful Monotheistic God vs Atheism

[Doorman]

Jim has as much power to lift 10lbs, bob has the power to lift 100lbs in a gym. Bob is the most poweful guy in the Gym.

Bobs cuts his arms off. Jim is the most powerful guy in the gym.

[Ad Bot]

[.::Taboo::.]

Jim has as much power to lift 10lbs, bob has the power to lift 100lbs in a gym. Bob is the most poweful guy in the Gym.

that's loving wonderful, but bob isn't a figment of your imagination.
or wait i guess he is but he's a more realistic construct.

[ArchAngel]

I think you mean "Adeism Vs Deism". Atheism is not Adeism. Atheism is the rejection of theology, Adeism is the rejection of any deity, though they are most usually intertwined anyway. Just a small technicality.

Thanks for your input, if I could go back and change the thread tittle I would.

Bobs cuts his arms off. Jim is the most powerful guy in the gym.

Bob cuts his arm off by choice but can grow it back in a second.

[.::Taboo::.]

oh christ well i'm in the wrong damn thread then because the op's too handicapped to even get the terms right.

[Doorman]

Thanks for your input, if I could go back and change the thread tittle I would.

You can, just edit your original post and change whats in the "Subject" box.

[Jacob/Lee]

I hope the OP has bunker gear.

[Doorman]

Bob cuts his arm off by choice but can grow it back in a second.

Bob grows his arms back. Bob is back to being the most power guy in the gym again.

Look, this argument is pointless. What I'm trying to say is that if a god were to wave away some of his power, it would no longer be all powerful. Even if it could get that power back, it doesn't mean at that instant it is all powerful.

[ArchAngel]

You can, just edit your original post and change whats in the "Subject" box.

The same is true when we come to the case of create a stone which cannot be lifted. Aside from the problem that we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe, the concept of the stone is self-contradictory. Basically, such a stone could not exist because it is conceptually incoherent. When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven't been given absolute properties, but instead we've been given properties of the stone relative to God's properties. The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn't lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. Automatically, the concept of such a stone is nullified. Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn't imply a lack of potential on the part of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical, unreal, inadmissible. It is very similar to asking if God can die. Well, death isn't an ability, its the inability to live. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist.

[.::Taboo::.]

The same is true when we come to the case of create a stone which cannot be lifted. Aside from the problem that we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe, the concept of the stone is self-contradictory. Basically, such a stone could not exist because it is conceptually incoherent. When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven't been given absolute properties, but instead we've been given properties of the stone relative to God's properties. The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn't lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. Automatically, the concept of such a stone is nullified. Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn't imply a lack of potential on the part of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical, unreal, inadmissible. It is very similar to asking if God can die. Well, death isn't an ability, its the inability to live. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist.

wh
what the forget.
are you just spewing stuff to try and seem intelligent now or what?

[Doorman]

The same is true when we come to the case of create a stone which cannot be lifted. Aside from the problem that we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe, the concept of the stone is self-contradictory. Basically, such a stone could not exist because it is conceptually incoherent. When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven't been given absolute properties, but instead we've been given properties of the stone relative to God's properties. The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn't lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. Automatically, the concept of such a stone is nullified. Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn't imply a lack of potential on the part of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical, unreal, inadmissible. It is very similar to asking if God can die. Well, death isn't an ability, its the inability to live. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist.

Now you're just going against what you said earlier and you proved my point. If he cannot create it, then he is not all omnipotent. If he were omnipotent wouldn't he be able to:

go beyond the laws that are subjected to humans and objects?

Thus, doing the illogical and create something that cannot exist?

Edit:
By the way, just use "Monotheism" for your title.

[ArchAngel]

Now you're just going against what you said earlier and you proved my point. If he cannot create it, then he is not all omnipotent. If he were omnipotent wouldn't he be able to:Thus, doing the illogical and create something that cannot exist?

You're basically asking, if God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something? The question is illogical and self-contradictory because the argument contradicts the premise. Once you have already established that God can do anything, then that's a set attribute and part of His nature. Therefore, He can do anything that is consistent with His nature, anything that is absolute.

Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldn't be 1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.

[Doorman]

You're basically asking, if God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something? The question is illogical and self-contradictory because the argument contradicts the premise. Once you have already established that God can do anything, then that's a set attribute and part of His nature. Therefore, He can do anything that is consistent with His nature, anything that is absolute.

But, God can make the idea come to being, right? If he can do anything because of his omnipotence, he should be able to do that by choice, correct? Therefore, waving his power away and no longer being all powerful.

[ArchAngel]

But, God can make the idea come to being, right? If he can do anything because of his omnipotence, he should be able to do that by choice, correct? Therefore, waving his power away and no longer being all powerful.

A common contention or question regarding God’s power and ability is that if God is omnipotent then can He create a stone He cannot move?  What omnipotence really implies is the ability to actualise every affair, rather than raw power. So God being able to “create a stone He cannot move” actually describes an affair that is impossible and meaningless, just like if we were to say “a white black crow” or “a circle triangle” or even an “amphibian mammal”.

Therefore, waving his power away and no longer being all powerful.

One equals one, and that is what I've been trying to say.

Anything =/= certain things

And, nothing out there can do anything, for that means it will be able to do something that will prevent itself from doing something else. Therefore, it makes itself impossible to be a god.

This is irrational and absurd as it is equivalent to saying “an all powerful being cannot be an all powerful being”!

[Doorman]

A common contention or question regarding God’s power and ability is that if God is omnipotent then can He create a stone He cannot move?  What omnipotence really implies is the ability to actualise every affair, rather than raw power. So God being able to “create a stone He cannot move” actually describes an affair that is impossible and meaningless, just like if we were to say “a white black crow” or “a circle triangle” or even an “amphibian mammal”.

Well, if he can "actualize every affair," then he should be able to make that situation possible, or he is not really omnipotent. Unless we consider what we stated earlier, and he can do it, but chooses to wave away his omnipotence.

This is irrational and absurd as it is equivalent to saying “an all powerful being cannot be an all powerful being”!

Actually, that is just stating a fact. See above.

Edit:
Whatever, I'm tired. It's one o'clock in the morning here and I have stuff to do.

[Solid]

"If religious beliefs were based on fact, they would not require faith."