El Greco
Summer worshipper
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 17,614
Iacchus said:
I don't understand how can you be so thick that even after all these discussions you fail to understand that what you call "evidence" is pure nonsense for everybody else except you. And I am not talking about atheists only, even believers think the same about your "evidence".
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
I agree with Lifegazer. God doesn't exist. I think that's what he is trying to say - 'there really is no logical reason to believe in God, and I have the empirical evidence to prove it'.
Lifegazer Lexicon Term of the Day:
Primal-Cause: Something that causes everything else, but has no cause itself despite the fact that everything has a cause, because I said so.
Must contain hyphen.
Lifegazer Lexicon Term of the Day:
Primal-Cause: Something that causes everything else, but has no cause itself despite the fact that everything has a cause, because I said so.
Must contain hyphen.
No, the difference between me and you (and the Creationists) is that I can see the forest from the trees. You guys are still hashing it out in the woods.El Greco said:
Whereas the two extremes of the circle come together exactly at where the two ends meet ... and hence the forest I'm speaking about here (within the circle).
El Greco
Summer worshipper
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 17,614
Re: Re: omnipotence
God can not create things that are not open to corruption.
Of course we had/have a chance though. I don't see how you have one follow from the other. Pick your nose. Do it. Did you? See, people have chances, continually, and all the time.
Jesus is necessary for human redemption/reconciliation. We are created, but the "as we are" is up to us, and the choices we make.
-Elliot
triadboy said:
God can not create things that are not open to corruption.
Of course we had/have a chance though. I don't see how you have one follow from the other. Pick your nose. Do it. Did you? See, people have chances, continually, and all the time.
Jesus is necessary for human redemption/reconciliation. We are created, but the "as we are" is up to us, and the choices we make.
-Elliot
Re: Re: omnipotence
Let me expound then. The concept of omnipotence, if applied to an entity, can only be applied to one entity. If no omnipotent being exists, then why throw the term around? I am not talking Anselm here. If God exists (and if you wish to consider the idea that God exists), this God would be omnipotent. Omnipotent too your own personal liking? Of course not. That would then limit God's potency.
Of course God has different definitions. Atheists have their OWN definitions of God, even if they don't think God exists.
If some definitions of God do not include omnipotence, then I personally reject those definitions. I can't tell people how they should define God. I can only explain my personal definition.
As for the dictionary definition of omnipotence, I don't have much use for the dictionary definition. If you don't believe that ANY entity is omnipotent, why should you have the use for the dictionary definition of omnipotence? Then we are in agreement. The dictionary definition is either theoretical, silly, or non-existent. My concept of omnipotence is just that. Conceptual, and existent, as opposed to limiting. God can't be limited by dictionary definitions.
I agree with your sentiments about the dictionary defintion omnipotence. When I use the word omnipotence (as I have already explained I think), I redefine it of course. But I do not relinquish the claim to being all powerful. An all powerful being's actions can not be as powerful as the being. All powerful can not exist in the plural, because then it would not be all powerful.
-Elliot
Upchurch said:
Let me expound then. The concept of omnipotence, if applied to an entity, can only be applied to one entity. If no omnipotent being exists, then why throw the term around? I am not talking Anselm here. If God exists (and if you wish to consider the idea that God exists), this God would be omnipotent. Omnipotent too your own personal liking? Of course not. That would then limit God's potency.
Of course God has different definitions. Atheists have their OWN definitions of God, even if they don't think God exists.
If some definitions of God do not include omnipotence, then I personally reject those definitions. I can't tell people how they should define God. I can only explain my personal definition.
As for the dictionary definition of omnipotence, I don't have much use for the dictionary definition. If you don't believe that ANY entity is omnipotent, why should you have the use for the dictionary definition of omnipotence? Then we are in agreement. The dictionary definition is either theoretical, silly, or non-existent. My concept of omnipotence is just that. Conceptual, and existent, as opposed to limiting. God can't be limited by dictionary definitions.
I agree with your sentiments about the dictionary defintion omnipotence. When I use the word omnipotence (as I have already explained I think), I redefine it of course. But I do not relinquish the claim to being all powerful. An all powerful being's actions can not be as powerful as the being. All powerful can not exist in the plural, because then it would not be all powerful.
-Elliot
Tricky
Briefly immortal
A god who cannot override a single free-will decision made by any of the billions of humans on the Earth does not sound particularly omnipotent by any definition you could choose.
Actually, the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being is incoherent, contradictory, and precludes the existance of anything else. Lifegazer claims that makes us all part of "God"...I claim that it makes the concept illogical.
Acrimonious
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2002
- Messages
- 111
Lifegazer's God is stupid.
Just a few questions:
1) You have stated that the purpose of your philosophy is to show to all mankind that they are God, so that we all unite in peace and love and goodness. Is this truly the main goal of your philosophy?
2) Is God truly Omnipotent and Omnipresent?
3) If so, how is it possible for figments of his imagination (US) to override the very things he has forced us to do: mankind NOT being peaceful, uniting in peace, etc?
I am God.
You are God.
We disagree.
i.e. God disagrees with itself.
i.e. God is either stupid or insane.
Just a few questions:
1) You have stated that the purpose of your philosophy is to show to all mankind that they are God, so that we all unite in peace and love and goodness. Is this truly the main goal of your philosophy?
2) Is God truly Omnipotent and Omnipresent?
3) If so, how is it possible for figments of his imagination (US) to override the very things he has forced us to do: mankind NOT being peaceful, uniting in peace, etc?
I am God.
You are God.
We disagree.
i.e. God disagrees with itself.
i.e. God is either stupid or insane.