All Powerful Monotheistic God vs Atheism

[Iceball3]

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.
Quit lubing the slippery slope of fallacy, please.

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"

[Ad Bot]

[ArchAngel]

arch you are obviously a strong believer. dont you think its a little blasphemous of you to "prove" your points by citing riddles and cliches all the time?

trying to catch your debat'ees in a trap of confusion is not how people can be converted.

im not trying to convert, I am trying to have a disc about religion with the forum.

I'm an atheist, and I still disagree due to this statement being judgmental on belief.
Quit lubing the slippery slope of fallacy, please.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"

But than in it self is a fruitless paradox? is 1 really 1, or  is 1 really 2?

[fred da kiko]

im not trying to convert, I am trying to have a disc about religion with the forum.

why, from my past experiences with the subject the forum is usually of no help.

[Iceball3]

im not trying to convert, I am trying to have a disc about religion with the forum.

Strange, I thought the original intent was beliefs, not religion.
Such an odd and adrupt turn of the topic indeed.

[rkynick]

That means I can use this.


Deism (i /ˈdiːɪzəm/ US dict: dē′·ĭzm)[1][2] in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe.

No, you cannot. Clearly, you did not read the first sentence of that definition.
Regardless one poorly worded definition out of 5 does not a case make.

I will not accept any gray area in this matter, and anything suggesting the slightest hint of gray area in this matter is flawed and incorrect.

[Doorman]

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"

In other words, being a god means you can't do certain things or you no longer qualify as a god.
Edit:
That, and it breaks the universe.

[fred da kiko]

if god is invincible.... what happens if he punches himself in the face?

[ArchAngel]

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 other words, being a god means you can't do certain things or you no longer qualify as a god.
Edit:
That, and it breaks the universe.

The paradox of omnipotence.
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.

[Iceball3]

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 other words, being a god means you can't do certain things or you no longer qualify as a god.

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.

Now for a different way to look at it.
Basically, a deity can only be a deity if one is unsure, but just the same, you don't know if it is or isn't, because you're unsure. You cannot be sure, due to the fact that being sure would prove it false as it's nonexistence fails to support it. I think that is an example of Schrodinger's cat, were something exists and doesn't at the same time because you are unsure. Basically saying, if there was any deity, we do not know if it exists, and it really doesn't do anything besides idle while existing and not existing at the same time...
Sort of like an idea.
Not sure if the paragraph I just wrote was BS or not though.

[Doorman]

So Does 1 =1 or does 1 = 2? Simple question just answer it.

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.

[ArchAngel]

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

Anything =/= certain things

And, nothing 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.

That was a shamless filler question.

[Saber15]

weak agnostic

[Iceball3]

The paradox of omnipotence.
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.

Though, this was the best argument towards that direction that I've heard so far. Nice.

[fred da kiko]

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

Anything =/= certain things

And, nothing 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.

stupidity has been highlighted.

[Iceball3]

stupidity has been highlighted.

Mayhaps replacing "anything" with "everything" skews the argument to a bit more clearer standing?