Assuming God Exists, Could an Omnipotent God,

[JudeBrando]

Jude the problem is you aren't arguing for God, you're arguing just for what "all powerful" means. The very fact that you attribute it to God is irrelevant.

And then, your logic fails because let's say a God "could" get a book to us, as self evident by being "all powerful" that's just as likely as a God NOT wanting to give us a book, or misleading with a LIE. It means NOTHING!

You run into a problem with "all powerful" so you need to determine God to not be "all powerful" to avoid the obvious problems; that "all powerful" makes no sense.

And by the way, I take issue with you claiming that Foster lied when he said you were dishonest. I agree with him that you are dishonest, and I can find nothing in your intent to prove otherwise. You've blatantly and willingly ignored the multitude of this thread explaining WHY your argument is stillborn, as evident by your cherrypicking which Foster even pointed out. Foster pointed out how the term "God" your using is EXACTLY as plausible as Santa, and that you cannot draw a conclusion in reality from what your arguing. All-powerful God is as ridiculous as Santa. Stop ignoring that.

Lowpro,

If there is a Creator of the universe and everything in it... everything...

Do you think The Creator Of The Universe And Everything In It could get a Book to you?

Yes or No?

Could or Could Not?

Hypothetically speaking, you understand...

If.

 

[Lowpro]

Lowpro,

If there is a Creator of the universe and everything in it... everything...

Do you think The Creator Of The Universe And Everything In It could get a Book to you?

Yes or No?

Could or Could Not?

Hypothetically speaking, you understand...

If.

I have no idea because a Creator of the Universe and Everything in It hasn't been defined to be able to do anything. It has no defined intent. It's like asking if the energy of the Big Bang could give me a Book.

It's resigned entirely to possibilianism because there is no intent. You'd have to ascribe attributes to the Creator. The problem with your OP was that you ascribed "all powerful" which is ridiculous and impossible and only exists through language, not through possibility.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Lowpro,

If there is a Creator of the universe and everything in it... everything...

Do you think The Creator Of The Universe And Everything In It could get a Book to you?

Yes or No?

Could or Could Not?

Hypothetically speaking, you understand...

If.

Despite what you've seen on the television, implying a point with a question does not make one appear wise. It's a tactic of manipulators and hucksters.
If you have conviction for your position, then actually state the position and discuss it.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Obviously, I quoted the fundamental and obvious agreements with my premise.

In just the way that, when a reviewer describes a movie as "an unparalleled pile of tripe", "an incomparable mess", or "stunning in its utter vileness", the advertising and posters will quote the fundamental and obvious parts: "unparalleled", and "incomparable", and "stunning".

 

[dafydd]

'A lot of the Bible is made up, otherwise it would only be a pamphlet.' -Mrs. Brown.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Stop lying.

What lie? If you omit parts of people's responses to make it sound like they agree with you when they really don't, then you are being dishonest.

You know what's funny?

I'll snip the rest of your histrionic protest and simply point out that omitted far more than that one statement by me. Here's a sample:

Of course. It's right there in the definition you gave. All powerful.
What you are asking is :
Is an all-powerful being all-powerful?
Silly, silly, silly.

Why not? I mean, if we can hypothesize that Santa Clause can deliver toys to all the good little boys and girls in one night, why can't we hypothesize that an omnipotent god can control the scribes copying a book?

I don't see why not.

HTH

[You may wish to look up the definition of HTH in the Urban Dictionary.]

He could.

Which makes the sheer number and sheer variety of bibles out there even more of a mystery for christians.

Of course. However if such a God exists, it seems to have chosen not to deliver a Book that we can reasonably determine is of divine (or even alien) authorship. Everything we have is indistinguishable from the products of human effort.

A truly omnipotent god, assuming one existed, if he, she, or it decided to provide us all with a book of rules, could be presumed capable, as part of the subset of omnipotence, to be capable of operating a god-damn printing press.

Yes, he jolly well could. Therefore, it should stand to reason that either no such intentions exist, or no such God exists.

An omniscient, omnipotent being can't be countered. Only what such a being allows can happen. Assuming God exists, God allowed a plethora of contradictory holy scriptures; and this suited God's purposes, for it cannot be otherwise if an omniscient and omnipotent God exists.

Again, yes, if we assume the existence of an omnipotent god we can imagine that it would be able to get a book delivered. But then if we assume the existence of a jolly, magical elf with flying reindeer, we can imagine that he could deliver toys to all the good little boys and girls in a single night. So just what is it that you think you've demonstrated?

Sure, so the question then becomes why didn't he/she/en/it?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well, since we are "Assuming God Exists," we really don't have to talk about Santa here and now, do we? Is that important?

Well yes, we do have to talk about Santa. You see, you haven't demonstrated a single thing other than that one can pretend anything. Your offering a defense of your belief that can be used by anyone to defend any belief, even those that contradict yours.

 

[dafydd]

What lie? If you omit parts of people's responses to make it sound like they agree with you when they really don't, then you are being dishonest.

What did you expect? All so-called Christians cherry pick the Bible and ignore the bits that do not suit them.

 

[catsmate]

I'm confused as to what you are hoping to communicate by quoting a bunch of people out of context and ignoring their actual replies to your question. They are your audience here, and they know what they actually said. If you are just trying to be annoying, you aren't even succeeding at that. It just seems....weird.

If you work from the premise that JB had no desire to communicate anything and that it's all an attempt to quell his own inner doubts his behaviour makes far more sense.
Still a waste of time for others though.

 

[TimCallahan]

Lowpro,

If there is a Creator of the universe and everything in it... everything...

Do you think The Creator Of The Universe And Everything In It could get a Book to you?

Yes or No?

Could or Could Not?

Hypothetically speaking, you understand...

If.

Okay, hypothetically, were there such a God, this God could get a book to you, one that would be true and have no internal inconsistencies. Thus the book in question couldn't possibly be the Bible.

 

[Lowpro]

Okay, hypothetically, were there such a God, this God could get a book to you, one that would be true and have no internal inconsistencies. Thus the book in question couldn't possibly be the Bible.

Now see this is where I have a problem. There is an assumption that if God must be able to deliver a book, that it must be a "perfect" book.

But that is JUST as likely as a douchebag God delivering an inconsistent book, or even MANY inconsistent books just because douchiness is his thing.

There could even be an evil God who sends the pious to Hell and the sinful to Heaven just because he's an evil God (also a douche). You don't even NEED to describe him as evil/douche because they're irrelevant, as qualities can only be defined by actions done, not as inherent traits out of nowhere.

You can make up attributes all you want to your imaginary character, but there is no evidence that there is a directive, a raison d'etre if you will, for this character to exist, much less deliver a book.

The whole exercise of arguing to possibility is retarded, and that's what Jude is doing. There is equal weight that if a God could deliver a book, it's infinitely possible or impossible; just as much as if God could stop himself from delivering a book. It's a semantics exercise and inconclusive. The very fact Jude is trying to draw a conclusion from it is evident of a lack of understanding of the entire exercise ANYWAYS.

 

[kerikiwi]

Obviously, I quoted the fundamental and obvious agreements with my premise.

No, no you did not. What you did was pathetically dishonest.
You are lying, either to us or to yourself, but you are lying.

 

[JudeBrando]

Okay kerikiwi, why then do you think God could not get a Book to us?

Assuming God exists, tell me why you say God Can't.

 

[JudeBrando]

...douchebag God.. douchiness.. evil God.. evil God (also a douche).. evil/douche...

The whole exercise of arguing to possibility is retarded, and that's what Jude is doing.

It clearly bothers you a great deal. Look at the lengths of posts you will repeatedly go through to avoid such a simple point in so few words necessary.

 

[Lowpro]

It clearly bothers you a great deal. Look at the lengths of posts you will repeatedly go through to avoid such a simple point in so few words necessary.

Yea I know, you get confused by huge amounts of words =\ I'll try to handicap myself more for your sake. It must explain why you edit out whole explanations to cherry pick; you just can't read it all...

Seriously though, it bothers me that you are so dishonest about an obviously ridiculous question, and moreso it bothers me that you'd actually try to draw a conclusion from it when you've been slammed repeatedly by many people other than myself exclaiming that the idea is ridiculous.

It's like telling a child not to touch the hot stove, but you can't help the poor idiot sometimes...

Okay kerikiwi, why then do you think God could not get a Book to us?

Assuming God exists, tell me why you say God Can't.

Seriously Jude, sit back and consider why God even COULD get a book to us. If we take the history of the Bible as a clue God obviously doesn't do it directly; he's impotent, or at least not observably able to do it himself. He must only influence those who CAN write a book to write one, and thus they deliver it to themselves as inspired by God.

Likewise, God could have been humping the Moon and the resulting offspring could have been born with Angelman's and its incessant laughter could have inspired people to write the Bible. Just as likely, infinitely likely/unlikely and inconclusive.

Now, if you reach THAT conclusion you have the uphill battle against every other religion that says "Um, wrong book bucko" but this was already mentioned.

 

[TimCallahan]

Now see this is where I have a problem. There is an assumption that if God must be able to deliver a book, that it must be a "perfect" book.

But that is JUST as likely as a douchebag God delivering an inconsistent book, or even MANY inconsistent books just because douchiness is his thing.

There could even be an evil God who sends the pious to Hell and the sinful to Heaven just because he's an evil God (also a douche). You don't even NEED to describe him as evil/douche because they're irrelevant, as qualities can only be defined by actions done, not as inherent traits out of nowhere.

You can make up attributes all you want to your imaginary character, but there is no evidence that there is a directive, a raison d'etre if you will, for this character to exist, much less deliver a book.

The whole exercise of arguing to possibility is retarded, and that's what Jude is doing. There is equal weight that if a God could deliver a book, it's infinitely possible or impossible; just as much as if God could stop himself from delivering a book. It's a semantics exercise and inconclusive. The very fact Jude is trying to draw a conclusion from it is evident of a lack of understanding of the entire exercise ANYWAYS.

All these are good points; but I think Jude sees his God as all-good, as well as being omniscient and omnipotent. So, Jude, would you expect a book delivered by this God to be without error?

 

[kerikiwi]

Okay kerikiwi, why then do you think God could not get a Book to us?

Assuming God exists, tell me why you say God Can't.

I didn't say that.

 

[Kay]

Assuming God Exists, Could an Omnipotent God,
an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator of the Universe and everything in it,
could such a God handle everything necessary to being able to get a Book delivered to us as He intends?
Or stated another way- Is there any reason to believe that God could not get a Book to us as He intends?

You know, I think Jude's point is perfectly valid.

So why don't we follow the religion who argues that God literally dictated their Holy Book ie. Islam as opposed to one that clearly wasn't, ie. the Bible?

I'm an atheist. But if I was to convert to any religion, it would definitely be Islam, as it's a religion that makes far, far more sense to me than Christianity.

 

[chuck4842]

God could obviously deliver a book, could the receiver protect the original, and make backup copies properly, then distribute the original information exactly as received without corrupting the pure information which may contain a description of the imperfect receivers translation which God already knew would happen in hopes of bringing the receivers awareness of his shortcomings? is my question.

 

[Corky]

Okay, hypothetically, were there such a God, this God could get a book to you, one that would be true and have no internal inconsistencies. Thus the book in question couldn't possibly be the Bible.

I knew it! There's another book and it's hid somewhere. The 'real' book is probably in heaven with the golden plates that Joe Smith translated into Elizabethan English - I bet that's it.