The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[Jae Onasi]

Because I believe the christian god is suposed to be fair and good? Therefore why does he want people to go to hell? Had he not wanted them to' date=' he wouldn't have made them in such a way that they [b']will[/b] end up in hell.

 

How would you suggest He make them, then, and still allow free will?

 

Achilles--if God actually came up to you in physical form and invited you out for coffee/drink/whatever, would you actually view that as proof, or would you just decide it must be a figment of your imagination because God couldn't possibly be real? If it's the latter, then there's no point in Him showing up on your doorstep, is there? It won't make a bit of difference if He revealed himself in creation, through other Christians/people of faith, prayer, or directly then.

[Arcesious]

How would you suggest He make them, then, and still allow free will?

 

Achilles--if God actually came up to you in physical form and invited you out for coffee/drink/whatever, would you actually view that as proof, or would you just decide it must be a figment of your imagination because God couldn't possibly be real? If it's the latter, then there's no point in Him showing up on your doorstep, is there? It won't make a bit of difference if He revealed himself in creation, through other Christians/people of faith, prayer, or directly then.

 

Why give them free will anyways? What's the point if you can simply make them know everything and follow you? The Christian God wouldn't need humans as a jury to judge the devil. He's God. So he wouldn't need any jury, having all those omni attributes he has...

 

Problem with the other part of your argument is, I don't see God doing what you're saying right now. Why should I beleive it if I don't have 100% solid evidence that he exists anyways? If he does exist, then he obviously could prove he isn't a hullucination if we met him... He's God, so he could provide more proof than we can imagine that he exists, couldn't he...? So why doesn't he. He obviously would know what our philosphical and scientific standards are. If he wants us all to 'be saved' then He could easily prove his own existence in a way that will make us all beleive in him. I see no point in him telling us to have faith. That isn't exactly very effective in making everyone beleive in you... But he hasn't done it yet, so I must keep with my beleifs under the category of Agnoticism until I have proof....

[Jae Onasi]

If He doesn't exist, Arcesious, why ask the question about His allowing free will in the first place? If you're asking why He is or isn't allowing free will, then you've already acknowledged His existence--there is no free will question if He doesn't exist.

 

I don't believe He could 'make' anyone believe in Him 100%. Someone who is adamantly opposed to believing in God is going to refuse to acknowledge His existence even if given every bit of evidence there is in the world.

[Arcesious]

If He doesn't exist, Arcesious, why ask the question about His allowing free will in the first place? If you're asking why He is or isn't allowing free will, then you've already acknowledged His existence--there is no free will question if He doesn't exist.

 

I don't believe He could 'make' anyone believe in Him 100%. Someone who is adamantly opposed to believing in God is going to refuse to acknowledge His existence even if given every bit of evidence there is in the world.

 

We humans like to make all kinds of things up. How hard is it for us to come up with an assumtion of a God who gives us free will when there may be no God?

 

He's God. He could make everyone believe even if they have free will if he wanted to. He's all powerful and capable of anything by the way we describe him as possibly being, if he even exists. So even with free will, the way he's described, he can do anything, even convicne any person with free will that he exists without violating their free will, since he's God and can do anything.

But he hasn't done any of that, so I have no reason to believe in him when he defies the logic and almightiness described of him.

[Nedak]

If He doesn't exist, Arcesious, why ask the question about His allowing free will in the first place? If you're asking why He is or isn't allowing free will, then you've already acknowledged His existence--there is no free will question if He doesn't exist.

 

It's a hypothetical question...

 

God does have the power to 'make' a person believe in him 100% because well... He's GOD.

[SpartanPride]

Because I believe the christian god is suposed to be fair and good? Therefore why does he want people to go to hell? Had he not wanted them to' date=' he wouldn't have made them in such a way that they [b']will[/b] end up in hell.

 

Sorry if I'm out of context, but this is what I gathered from the last couple of pages.

 

God wants us to love him, but why would he want a whole bunch of mindless robots to love him? He gives us free will so we can choose to be with him.

 

Would you prefer a robot wife (Or Husband) Or a real wife/husband who loves you for who you are?

 

If God wanted people to go to hell, why then, did he create Heaven? And how come the only requirment to get to Heaven is a simple prayer?

[Rev7]

Well, I guess that I will try this again... (My computer crashed)

The problem is not that God knows what people will do, per se. It's that he created them as they are, knowing what they would do. The kind of 'knowing' God has here is not a prediction. It isn't fallible. It isn't limited.

 

It can be argued that God doesn't interfere with people's decisions, such as they are. But that, while a worthwhile argument, is not addressing all of the problem. The rest of the problem lies in God being logically unable not to have interfered at at least one point. That point is Creation.

 

The reason this point is sticky is because, well, people don't just pop into existence out of nothing. God has to give their clay bodies the breath of life-- and he knows exactly what goes into that breath, that clay, and the world surrounding it. He's not guessing here.

 

Even so, you can define free will as the ability to make choices as we normally make them. Rev7's post exemplifies this, and it's not a particularly problematic view. In fact, it's perfectly in compliance with full-on theological determinism. You'll notice that even Rev7 put the "free" in quotes. The only thing that would cause a problem, in fact, is if God held us morally responsible for those 'choices'... in the form of, say, eternal damnation / separation from god. No, it's not like people don't have 'choices.' It's just they don't have the choices (not quoted) God has.

 

What kind of punishments are appropriate to show a child that it's doing the wrong thing? You might speak strongly to her, put her in time out, or other similar things. Bad children should know they're being bad so that they can avoid it in the future.

 

What kind of punishments are appropriate for a creator god to give to people? The kind that will let them avoid mistakes in the future? There's something different here.

As for the last statement, how can you know that God doesn't warn people? I am really curious. Yeah, people that recieve warnings (not that I have...) could possible not see them as warnings. Regardless, how do you know that He doesn't warn people?

Why give them free will anyways? What's the point if you can simply make them know everything and follow you? The Christian God wouldn't need humans as a jury to judge the devil. He's God. So he wouldn't need any jury, having all those omni attributes he has...

 

Problem with the other part of your argument is, I don't see God doing what you're saying right now. Why should I beleive it if I don't have 100% solid evidence that he exists anyways? If he does exist, then he obviously could prove he isn't a hullucination if we met him... He's God, so he could provide more proof than we can imagine that he exists, couldn't he...? So why doesn't he. He obviously would know what our philosphical and scientific standards are. If he wants us all to 'be saved' then He could easily prove his own existence in a way that will make us all beleive in him. I see no point in him telling us to have faith. That isn't exactly very effective in making everyone beleive in you... But he hasn't done it yet, so I must keep with my beleifs under the category of Agnoticism until I have proof....

"Why should I beleive it if I don't have 100% solid evidence that he exists anyways?"

~ Well, I have said this before, there is no 100% solid evidence that He exists. That is what faith is called.

Faith-- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

__________

The only true proof that God is real is--

 

 

That He is in my heart

 

 

We humans like to make all kinds of things up. How hard is it for us to come up with an assumtion of a God who gives us free will when there may be no God?

 

He's God. He could make everyone believe even if they have free will if he wanted to. He's all powerful and capable of anything by the way we describe him as possibly being, if he even exists. So even with free will, the way he's described, he can do anything, even convicne any person with free will that he exists without violating their free will, since he's God and can do anything.

But he hasn't done any of that, so I have no reason to believe in him when he defies the logic and almightiness described of him.

Well, as far as I know, He hasn't done anything like that. I personally think that what you have stated is a little bit out of context. I believe God to be Almighty even if He doesn't do anything like that. Are you saying, if he did that, you would believe in Him? I just need that clarifacation...

God wants us to love him, but why would he want a whole bunch of mindless robots to love him? He gives us free will so we can choose to be with him.

QFE. My thoughts exactly.

[mur'phon]

Jae: If he is omnipotent and omnicent, he knew everything that would happen, even before creation. He knew who would end up in hell, because he created them that way. If he didn't want some people to go to hell, he obviously wouldn't have created them that way. Now, there wouldn't be anything "wrong" with that if he hadn't at the same time claimed to be "good" and "just".

 

If God wanted people to go to hell, why then, did he create Heaven? And how come the only requirment to get to Heaven is a simple prayer?

 

Ooops, didn't mean to write that, I meant to say: why does he want some people to go to hell.

 

God wants us to love him, but why would he want a whole bunch of mindless robots to love him? He gives us free will so we can choose to be with him.

 

But what he seems to be doing now is to make a lot of diferent robots, and punishing those with a certain programing.

[Totenkopf]

Raises the question of whether you believe in personal responsibility. I'm not saying it's really an unfair question (as ED, myself and at least one other also mentioned), but if your choices (assuming free will, of course) lead you to hell, why does it have to be God's fault? Why He'd create someone knowing that they'd opt for that choice (pride goeth before the fall it's said) is a bit bewildering, though.

[Achilles]

Achilles--if God actually came up to you in physical form and invited you out for coffee/drink/whatever, would you actually view that as proof, or would you just decide it must be a figment of your imagination because God couldn't possibly be real?

Absolutely. If he manifested himself in such a way that there were no other possible explanation, then that would be sufficient proof. Considering what he is, allegedly, capable of this, plus the existing fables of him doing so for others, I don't think my minimum requirements are even slightly unreasonable.

 

If it's the latter, then there's no point in Him showing up on your doorstep, is there?

No, not at all. However if some guy showed up on your doorstep tomorrow, reeking of cheap wine and homeless shelters, how persuaded would you be by his claims of divine ancestry? It seems that you and I would be equally skeptical in many situations, however you seem inclined to suspend your critical thinking in some situations in which I am not willing to follow suit.

 

It won't make a bit of difference if He revealed himself in creation, through other Christians/people of faith, prayer, or directly then.

Except that's not evidence for his existence, any more so than it is an argument for the existence for a multitude of other supreme being (including the Flying Spaghetti Monster). At some point you have to introduce objective criteria for your argument, however the argument itself doesn't stand up to objective criteria. This is not the hallmark of educated thinking.

[Emperor Devon]

Uhh...Devon, the whole purpose of Atheism is that Atheists do not believe in the existence of a Deity or Deities.

 

And that's a fine distinction to be raising - one can see no reason to believe in a god, or flat-out deny the existence of one. (In other words, 'weak' atheism and 'strong' atheism.)

 

I can predict my kids' actions and reactions in a given situation, since I have a solid understanding of child growth and development and their personalities.

 

Knowledge of a paradigm =/= direct creation of said paradigm. (As well as infallible/divine knowledge of it, which yours despite its accuracy most likely is not.)

 

If God forces everyone to love Him, is that real love? It is not. {remainder of post that says it's not}

 

Already been addressed in the previous posts. But here's a general rehash, as it's a bit wordy and in some instances unclear:

 

Premise:

God is all-knowing

God is all-powerful

God created everything

Souls are the determining factor for internal decisions

Souls do not have to act consistently

 

Extrapolations:

1. If god created everything, god created our souls

2. If god is all-knowing, god knew our souls would determine any and all decisions we arrived at

3. If god is all-knowing, god knew all the decisions we would make prior to making our souls

4. A person cannot deviate from the make-up of their soul

5. Any contradictory decisions made a soul are part of its make-up

6. God made all souls with full knowledge of how they would act, so true deviations are impossible

 

Further extrapolation:

God decided how we would decide anything

 

Further:

God thus decided everything for us

 

Is there a specific one (or more) of these you have issue with? Try and address the specific premise/extrapolation(s) you do, please. It'll streamline any future responses.

 

would you just decide it must be a figment of your imagination because God couldn't possibly be real?

 

See first paragraph. There is as little empirical evidence to contradict the existence of a god as there is to confirm it.

 

{analogy}It won't make a bit of difference if He revealed himself in creation, through other Christians/people of faith, prayer

 

Gee, Dev, your arguments are utterly brilliant. Too bad Calvin made them a good 400 years before you were born.

 

Seeing as how the forum rule regarding politeness no longer seems to be applying, would you mind hearing out a slew of sarcastic, condescending and generally vituperative responses to your above quote?

 

But he hasn't done it yet, so I must keep with my beleifs under the category of Agnoticism until I have proof....

 

Hey, glad to see you've come around. (Though if you want to be picky, it sounds more like weak atheism to me.)

 

If He doesn't exist, Arcesious, why ask the question about His allowing free will in the first place?

 

As far as I'm aware, Arcesious stated that he saw no cause to believe in god (not that he believed one explicitly did not exist). Again, distinction.

 

Why not? Far enough analysis of the question can reveal inconsistencies in theistic beliefs, and it makes for a moderately good argument on its own.

 

I don't believe He could 'make' anyone believe in Him 100%.

 

Careful, you're trying to place finite qualities on the infinite. Last I heard, he was an all-powerful supreme being infinite and beyond human comprehension in every sense of the word. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

The only true proof that God is real is-- That He is in my heart

 

Did you even read the definition you just quoted? ~snipped~

Don't be rude, Devon.

[Ray Jones]

I think that this god you keep talking about, with whatever he allows to happen, wants you to *learn* something from it. The basic principle is easy: give a man a banana and he has food for a day, show him how to catch banana trees blah blah blah. And no, he doesn't want you to learn how bad gay people are. X)

[Nedak]

God wants us to love him, but why would he want a whole bunch of mindless robots to love him? He gives us free will so we can choose to be with him.

 

In other words, it's giving my dog the choice to obey a command and if he doesn't I throw him in the fireplace?

[Jae Onasi]

And that's a fine distinction to be raising - one can see no reason to believe in a god, or flat-out deny the existence of one. (In other words, 'weak' atheism and 'strong' atheism.)

So, it's still 'no belief in God', all splitting hairs aside.

 

Knowledge of a paradigm =/= direct creation of said paradigm. (As well as infallible/divine knowledge of it, which yours despite its accuracy most likely is not.)

Would you like to prove that it's not?

 

Already been addressed in the previous posts. But here's a general rehash, as it's a bit wordy and in some instances unclear:

 

Premise/Conclusions, blah blah blah....

6. God made all souls with full knowledge of how they would act, so true deviations are impossible

That is quite a leap in a conclusion. Just because the Creator makes something and knows what that creation is going to do doesn't mean that He cannot allow deviations by the creation. Your conclusion is not correct. If God cannot allow deviation, then He is not omnipotent.

Further extrapolation:

God decided how we would decide anything

Further extrapolation is impossible because point 6 is not true.

Further:

God thus decided everything for us

And yet another incorrect conclusion based on a faulty conclusion.

 

Is there a specific one (or more) of these you have issue with? Try and address the specific premise/extrapolation(s) you do, please. It'll streamline any future responses.

Try not to be sarcastic, unless you enjoy having posts moderated--and not necessarily by me.

 

See first paragraph. There is as little empirical evidence to contradict the existence of a god as there is to confirm it.

Would you like to prove that? Where is your comparison of evidence? Please be complete. Furthermore, it was not a question to you, and it was a very specific and literal question about what level of proof someone _does_ require in order to believe.

 

Seeing as how the forum rule regarding politeness no longer seems to be applying, would you mind hearing out a slew of sarcastic, condescending and generally vituperative responses to your above quote?

Like you already did in Skype chat? Break the rules here and you'll experience the same consequences as everyone else, and it will not be me enforcing that rule, it will be one of the other staff to avoid conflicts of interest.

 

As far as I'm aware, Arcesious stated that he saw no cause to believe in god (not that he believed one explicitly did not exist). Again, distinction.

Discussing why God has done/not done something presupposes that God exists. If you don't believe God exists, or even if you have no proof that God exists, then the question is irrelevant.

 

Careful, you're trying to place finite qualities on the infinite. Last I heard, he was an all-powerful supreme being infinite and beyond human comprehension in every sense of the word. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

My apologies--I chose my verb inappropriately. I should have said "I don't believe He would choose to make someone believe in Him 100%." In addition, aren't you ascribing the finite to the infinite by saying God is unable to give His creation freedom of choice?

[ET Warrior]

If God cannot allow deviation, then He is not omnipotent.

And if he can then he's not omniscient. Hrmmmmm.

[Corinthian]

There never would be a deviation, though, and it has nothing to do with God controlling us all like a game of chess. They sometimes call Jesus The Great Physician. Well, you might also say that God is The Great Psychologist. Given the fact that he knows each of us better than we know ourselves, he can accurately predict our actions throughout the course of time. We still have choices, but God knows us well enough to know exactly what choices we will make.

 

Also, God is outside of time, and given that he's omnipotent, he can just glance at the future to see what you're going to do next.

[Jae Onasi]

And if he can then he's not omniscient. Hrmmmmm.

 

How does that violate omniscience? You can know something will happen without intervening.

[Achilles]

So, it's still 'no belief in God', all splitting hairs aside.

Insofar as the distinctions between islam, christianity, and judaism constitute "splitting hairs", since they all believe in god.

 

The reality is that it's a matter of perspective. From your perspective, the various "degrees of atheism" are all the same because the net result is "no belief in god". From our perspective, the various religions are all the same because the net result is belief in something for which there is no evidence.

 

That is quite a leap in a conclusion. Just because the Creator makes something and knows what that creation is going to do doesn't mean that He cannot allow deviations by the creation. Your conclusion is not correct. If God cannot allow deviation, then He is not omnipotent.

If god cannot create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent either. But then again if he can't lift it then he's still not omnipotent. I guess the argument for god's omnipotence has problems regardless of how you look at it.

 

For comparison's sake, I would point out that computer programs are only capable of operating within the parameters specified by the programmer, but I assume that your response would most likely be an unsupportable claim that this limitation does not apply to god.

 

Further extrapolation is impossible because point 6 is not true.

This is your opinion only. Someone that believes in determinism would have to argue that point 6 is absolutely true. And since neither one of you would be able to provide objective evidence for either of your arguments, it would be impossible to determine which opinion is the "right" one.

 

And yet another incorrect conclusion based on a faulty conclusion.

Same as above.

 

Discussing why God has done/not done something presupposes that God exists. If you don't believe God exists, or even if you have no proof that God exists, then the question is irrelevant.

I'm not sure I understand the basis of this argument. Why is Devon's question irrelevant?

[Ray Jones]

Well, according to Newton, the apple falls down to Earth, and Earth falls down to the apple. Technically, everybody who is able to perform a handstand can lift a stone which he cannot lift.

[Jae Onasi]

Insofar as the distinctions between islam, christianity, and judaism constitute "splitting hairs", since they all believe in god.

 

The reality is that it's a matter of perspective. From your perspective, the various "degrees of atheism" are all the same because the net result is "no belief in god". From our perspective, the various religions are all the same because the net result is belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Since it's an Atheism/Theism thread, I'm OK with not splitting hairs--we're discussing whether God exists or doesn't exist and it's either one or the other. Splitting it out into separate religions or strong vs. weak Atheism is another issue altogether.

If god cannot create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent either. But then again if he can't lift it then he's still not omnipotent. I guess the argument for god's omnipotence has problems regardless of how you look at it.

That's an old logical paradox and it's like saying 'give me a square circle'. Here's one discussion of it:

The Paradox of the Stone

 

Some of the various arguments for atheism claim that the concept of God is incoherent, that there are logical problems with the existence of such a being. Perhaps the best known of these is the paradox of the stone: Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

 

Either God can create such a stone or he can’t.

 

If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent.

 

If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent.

 

Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God. God, therefore, does not exist.

Problems With the Paradox of the Stone

 

Although this simple argument may appear compelling at first glance, there are some fundamental problems with it. Before identifying these problems, however, it is necessary to make clear what is meant by “omnipotence”.

 

Christian philosophers have understood omnipotence in different ways. René Descartes though of omnipotence as the ability to do absolutely anything. According to Descartes, God can do the logically impossible; he can make square circles, and he can make 2 + 2 = 5.

 

Thomas Aquinas had a narrower conception of omnipotence. According to Aquinas, God is able to do anything possible; he can part the red sea, and he can restore the dead to life, but he cannot violate the laws of logic and mathematics in the way that Descartes thought that he could.

 

If Descartes’ conception of omnipotence is correct, then any attempt to disprove God’s existence using logic is hopeless. If God can do the logically impossible, then he can both create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, and lift it, and so can do all things. Yes, there’s a contradiction in this, but so what? God can, on this understanding of omnipotence, make contradictions true.

 

Descartes’ understanding of omnipotence therefore doesn’t seem to be vulnerable to the paradox of the stone. Descartes can answer the question "Yes" without compromising divine omnipotence.

 

Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence, which is more popular than that of Descartes, also survives the paradox of the stone. For if God exists then he is a being that can lift all stones. A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is therefore an impossible object. According to Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence, remember, God is able to do anything possible, but not anything impossible, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something impossible.

 

Aquinas can therefore answer the question "No" without compromising divine omnipotence.

 

The paradox of the stone, then, can be resolved; it fails to show that there is an incoherence in the theistic conception of God, and so fails to demonstrate that God does not exist.

 

CS Lewis addresses it also:

C.S. Lewis in his book "The Problem of Pain" holds that the nature of the paradox is internal to the statement. To quote: "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'' date=' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combination of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them to other words ‘God can’" (p. 18). In the end, "not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God". (p.18)[10']

 

 

Since this paradox is not supportable, it does not negate my comments to Devon on God's omnipotence.

 

For comparison's sake, I would point out that computer programs are only capable of operating within the parameters specified by the programmer, but I assume that your response would most likely be an unsupportable claim that this limitation does not apply to god.

God isn't the program. I might be missing your point here, though.

This is your opinion only. Someone that believes in determinism would have to argue that point 6 is absolutely true. And since neither one of you would be able to provide objective evidence for either of your arguments, it would be impossible to determine which opinion is the "right" one.

Point 6 cannot stand if God is omnipotent, because point 6 requires a limit on God's power.

 

I'm not sure I understand the basis of this argument. Why is Devon's question irrelevant?

That particular comment actually was addressing only Devon's one comment to Arcesious, rather than the entire post--sorry if I wasn't quite clear on that.

 

however the argument itself doesn't stand up to objective criteria. This is not the hallmark of educated thinking.

There have been plenty of far more educated people than either of us who have argued successfully for/against theism, and made compelling arguments on both sides. Please stop characterizing arguments for theism as 'uneducated thinking'.

[ET Warrior]

How does that violate omniscience? You can know something will happen without intervening.

But by its very definition, deviation means something which was not originally going to happen. Both through an infinite knowledge and an infinite power god HAS to have known before he even created the Universe that a very large number of his creations simply would not take accept its existence on the flimsy word of a very old and violent text that claims to be divinely inspired.

 

Therefore, I am either not deviating, or god is not omniscient. It is not logical for it to be both.

[SpartanPride]

In other words, it's giving my dog the choice to obey a command and if he doesn't I throw him in the fireplace?

 

It's not God's fault you go to hell, it's Satans... I could really get into this, but I've got to go... to a youth meeting, ironically.

 

@ Murphon. I just said God didn't make us robots, but you go on to say God must've programmed us wierd or something??? What?

[Arcesious]

I present this possible paradox:

 

Since infinite things are possible, omniscience and omnipotence are impossible.

 

(Please think out just how infinitely possible things could be. Could God keep up with being all powerful and all knowing with infinite things happening infinitly, one category of this infinitness being the infinite capablity to become more powerful than something that was once, by comparison to the universe, omnipowerful and omnipotent, since he has to be already all-powerful and omnipotent if he is to truly be all powerful and all knowing? Or perhaps this is not limited to a metaphysical standard...)

 

Please tell me that makes sense... I can't really make it simpler without bieng unable to show my point...

[Corinthian]

Okay, so what you're saying is that God's mind would be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information?

 

Wrong.

 

God IS infinite. Their is no end to him, no beginning. Thus, his mental capacity is also infinite, thus allowing his mind to grasp the infinite. Besides, how do you know that infinite things really are possible? Douglas Adams wasn't a prophet, the Infinite Improbability Drive is not a fact.

 

Or I may have misinterpreted it. You didn't exactly make it clear.

[Achilles]

Although this simple argument may appear compelling at first glance, there are some fundamental problems with it. Before identifying these problems, however, it is necessary to make clear what is meant by “omnipotence”.

 

<snip>

So, since we have a problem that we cannot solve, we're going to change the meaning of the words so that there is no problem to begin with. And who is doing the creative interpretation with words? Christian apologists.

 

Lovely.

 

Yes' date=' there’s a contradiction in this, but so what? God can, on this understanding of omnipotence, make contradictions true.[/quote'] This why I love apologists: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

 

The evidence of god's omnipotence is that he can overcome rules of logic that question his omnipotence. Nevermind that we haven't actually answered the question about the rock.

 

For if God exists then he is a being that can lift all stones. A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is therefore an impossible object. According to Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence' date=' remember, God is able to do anything possible, but not anything impossible, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something impossible.[/quote']Again, the actual question is not answered. Instead we are encouraged not to ask silly questions.

 

But, Mr. Aquinas, if god is omnipotent, doesn't he determines what is possible or impossible? What's that? Sit down and shut up now? Okay.

 

Since this paradox is not supportable, it does not negate my comments to Devon on God's omnipotence.

I understand that your sources argue that the paradox is not supportable, however that does not mean that it's true. What concerns me is that their explanations are unsupportable (all of the explanations presented are conjecture) and yet you've presented them here anyway.

 

So what we are left with is your opinion that the paradox is unsupportable and the original question left unanswered.

 

God isn't the program. I might be missing your point here, though.

No, god is the programmer.

 

You said, "Just because the Creator makes something and knows what that creation is going to do doesn't mean that He cannot allow deviations by the creation."

 

Just as computer program is not capable of doing something that it was not programmed (by a programmer) to do, and of god's creations are not capable of doing anything he has not given them the ability to do. Your point that god can allow for deviation makes sense, but I thought it important to point out that that deviation is limited to the parameters that he provides. If this is not the case, then some power other than god is at play, which would mean that not only is god not omnipotent, but not even that "potent" to begin with.

 

Point 6 cannot stand if God is omnipotent, because point 6 requires a limit on God's power.

I understand your point, however this does not address mine. What you have presented here is another problem for the argument of god's omnipotence, not a refutation of Devon's extrapolation.

 

Basically you're saying, "Point 6 cannot be true because if it were true, it would contradict the conclusion I've already decided upon. Since that is uncomfortable for me, Point 6 must be false".

 

There have been plenty of far more educated people than either of us who have argued successfully for/against theism, and made compelling arguments on both sides. Please stop characterizing arguments for theism as 'uneducated thinking'.

I know that this is a sore spot for you and I, but I'm just not going to be able to roll over for appeals to authority because you want me to. If you can make a case for why "educated people" are infallable, I might be willing to reconsider, however in the mean time, I have to consider the validity of the argument rather than the credentials (real or perceived) of the arguer.

 

Argument for theism are intellectually dishonest, or at the very best, are based on intellectual dishonesty. I can't change that fact, Jae. Nor can I ignore it. I hope this is something you'll be willing to understand.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

It's not God's fault you go to hell, it's Satans...

But god created satan. Therefore unless satan is more powerful than god (or heck, equally powerful) then ultimately god is still responsible. This same argument applies to god putting the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden, etc, etc.