Things that god can't do!

[Klaymore]

[Ah, I see we skipping the traditional usenet "steady escalation of hostilities until someone says 'You're taking this too seriously!'" and going straight to "increasingly emphatic expression of disinterest in the topic". A slight breach of etiquette, but points for style.]

Well, as of this writing I average 2.75 posts per day, while CT averages just over 7. By skipping "vague hostility" vaulting over "sweet Jesus, where the hell did that come from?" and landing chest-deep in "Advanced, Violent Tourette's Syndrome" I save myself from typing--on average--over 4 posts per day!

I use the extra time to watch "Teletubbies."

 

[lordcow]

No no... that's another story with historical truth.

if its a historical truth you have evidence right?

The story is the entire flood, ark, part.... the historical truth is that a regional flood actually happened and scientists discovered it thousands of years after the fact.

more than 1 substantial flood has been found in prehistoric times in the middle east. which one was the one mentioned in the genesis account and how did you make the connection?

(You stupid atheists!)

seeing that you weren't replying to the post you quoted i don't see how this is warranted

 

[lordcow]

Look, the Bible is full of both stories and historical truth.

In this case, Genesis is a story about a historical truth... the creation of the Universe.

Are you disputing this truth? Because it's 100% true. Any of your baloney to the contrary is because you don't understand that Genesis is a story.

Also, original sin is true... but Adam and Eve... Eden... well we're back to it being a story.... but a 100% historically true one... at least with regard to original sin.

So, to sum up.... Genesis = 100% historically true... and a story.

to sum up? you never said anything. if you want to claim that the genesis account of creation and original sin is true, at least give some motivation?

So, Genesis is one Bible story we True Christians™ ignore (you stupid Athiests!).

damn do you end off with these generalised swipes every time?

 

[tsg]

to sum up? you never said anything. if you want to claim that the genesis account of creation and original sin is true, at least give some motivation?



damn do you end off with these generalised swipes every time?

Me thinks somebody missed a [sarcasm] tag somewhere.

 

[lordcow]

Not wanting to hog the show, I'll only list my favourite "THING THAT god CAN'T DO!"

In the beginning i.e. Genesis, it states that god separated the light from the dark, to make day and night.

that's your favourite?

This is clearly impossible, if not tricky, simply because there is no such thing as dark; no such thing as night; and ergo, no such thing as god!

if you want to read the sentence strictly literally so that light and dark have physical existence, ok. but night does exist as a concept with the meaning we use today, and that sentence makes sense to me in that figurative sense. how do you know what the author(s) of genesis meant? the language of the time was not necessarily the same as it is now.

now, even if god can't separate light from dark as you say, then all that implies is that genesis is incorrect, not that god does not exist.

Premise: A faither says:" The bible is the word of god and is to be obeyed. It is the truth."

Reply:

If the 'bible' is wrong, the 'word of god' is wrong and hence 'god' is wrong.

you don't actually have a deductive line here, all you are saying is 'if the bible is wrong, it is wrong'. you have given no connection to it being the word of god. you might have a case if you state the bible claims it is the word of god, as well as somehow prove that the bible has to be entirely true or entirely false.

Similarly, there is no such thing as NIGHT! We live in a solar system where the Sun shines constantly {as far as we are concerned} and as such it is ALWAYS DAY!

i'm currently in the earth's shadow, its definitely night here ..

If you stand under a thick tree to block the sun, is it night?

what's your point?

 

[lordcow]

Me thinks somebody missed a [sarcasm] tag somewhere.

definitely, and they'd help since i don't know the posters yet. as you know there are enough've those styled posts out there that aren't intended to be sarcastic (and hence the humour).

 

[lordcow]

What this thread of mine has already shown [scientists are always experimenting] is that an intelligent skeptic always manages to come up with a better trail of thought than your average faither.

i must've missed that

The only truth is that there IS a Universe...its origin {by goddly creation} is certainly NOT true: yet another thing god can NOT do!

why is it certainly not true?

 

[Klaymore]

Well, say what one might about lordcow's punctuation, ability to use the "Shift" key(s), and apprehension of sarcastic nuance, one has to hand it to the dude that he knows how to come out swinging!

 

[T'ai Chi]

Because polaristutoring is one of those people who apparently makes the claim that he/she has surveyed all of space and time.

 

[lordcow]

Maybe to help the closet evolutionists understand {and hence come out of said closet} that EVO is not a random process, ask:" Random = equal likely hood of an outcome (yes?) so the world should be full of every type of living thing coded for by DNA. So where are they?"

Natural Selection is not powerful enough to destroy the multitude of species, alone, the fact is they never were formed! But they could be, dependant on the environment. This is non random.

selection is the reason it isn't random. what is this other mystery force you talk of?

Even the mutation of genes is not strictly random, otherwise no species would be stable!

care to expand?

 

[lordcow]

Well, say what one might about lordcow's punctuation, ability to use the "Shift" key(s), and apprehension of sarcastic nuance, one has to hand it to the dude that he knows how to come out swinging!

lol, hi. never got the hang've the shift key, felt it was too redundant for its worth. i'll fight you on the beaches over my punctuation though.

 

[Klaymore]

lol, hi. never got the hang've the shift key, felt it was too redundant for its worth. i'll fight you on the beaches over my punctuation though.

And he can take a joke!

2 points. No subtraction for punctuation.

 

[H3LL]

Because polaristutoring is one of those people who apparently makes the claim that he/she has surveyed all of space and time.

Any chance of you finding the space and time to reply sensibly to the thread I created for you and that several members have requested that you answer.

It's a simple question.

Here it is, just in case you have forgotten:

T'ai Chi's Explanation of the uses for ID

You have time to post elsewhere, why not there?

Ta!

 

[Mosquito]

There's always stuff like:

make a 4-sided triangle

make a circle whose circumference to diameter ration is 3 (aka "biblical pi")

make the Cubs win another World Series ever again

Well, since a tri-angle basically is defined to have exactly 3(tri) sides, the request is non-sensible(sp?).

Making a circle with circumference to diameter = 3 is possible around a suitable black hole, nothing special about it (unless I remember wrongly and it is making it 4 that is "trivial").

No comment on the Cubs statement.

But can god have its cake and eat it too?

Can god commit suicide as payment for sins *you* committed in order to save you from being punished by itself according to rules it made and then made you break?

Mosquito - not that you care

 

[lordcow]

Making a circle with circumference to diameter = 3 is possible around a suitable black hole, nothing special about it (unless I remember wrongly and it is making it 4 that is "trivial").

why break your back getting to a black hole, just draw a circle on a sphere.

now if we could get this thread rephrased to 'things that god can't do that aren't purely logical impossibilities' then we wouldn't have to worry about these and the lifting heavy rocks questions, but then we'd probably have nothing to talk about.

Can god commit suicide as payment for sins *you* committed in order to save you from being punished by itself according to rules it made and then made you break?

what rules did god make us break? either way doesn't sound like a well thought out plan to me no.

 

[Mosquito]

why break your back getting to a black hole, just draw a circle on a sphere.

Oh, so you want SIMPLE solutions, eh? Don't want to do the REAL work, eh? Just slopping around and being lazy, are we? Eh?


Seriously, didn't think about that one. It works, though. As long as you allow the diametre to be measured outside the sphere's surface, which isn't so far fetched.

now if we could get this thread rephrased to 'things that god can't do that aren't purely logical impossibilities' then we wouldn't have to worry about these and the lifting heavy rocks questions, but then we'd probably have nothing to talk about.

No? The lifting heavy rock question is much better than the four-sided triangle, I always thought, as it should not be impossible for an omnipotent being to create rocks of whatever size&weight, even too heavy to lift. And then lift it.

Maybe not a rock hard proof of anything, but better than the triangle.

what rules did god make us break? either way doesn't sound like a well thought out plan to me no.

It's own rules. I paraphrased someone's .sig. Don't remember whom's. The original is probably better.


Mosquito - Unable to change, so why are you asking me questions? If I'm going to answer them, I would anyway and if I'm not, then I won't. (The Mosquito answer to prayers)

 

[Klaymore]

now if we could get this thread rephrased to 'things that god can't do that aren't purely logical impossibilities' then we wouldn't have to worry about these and the lifting heavy rocks questions, but then we'd probably have nothing to talk about.

That translates as "If we stopped talking about the stuff that proves that there could never truly be a being that could do anything (since even paradoxes are things) then we could spend tons and tons of time talking about all of the stuff that I want to talk about."

You can certainly, positively, talk about the stuff you want to talk about. Hell, you can even ask questions, and a lot of people will probably answer you. You will, of course, probably be asked a lot of questions too. Maybe you can answer them more straightforwardly than CT does (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2587131&posted=1#post2587131 above).

But if you are going to wait around for the people on this forum to stop pointing out the many, many, many reasons that--supreme being or no--there could never be a truly omnipotent one, you are going to be waiting...

And worse than that, you'll be wasting you time, and being boring.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

That translates as "If we stopped talking about the stuff that proves that there could never truly be a being that could do anything (since even paradoxes are things) then we could spend tons and tons of time talking about all of the stuff that I want to talk about."

You can certainly, positively, talk about the stuff you want to talk about. Hell, you can even ask questions, and a lot of people will probably answer you. You will, of course, probably be asked a lot of questions too. Maybe you can answer them more straightforwardly than CT does (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2587131&posted=1#post2587131 above).

But if you are going to wait around for the people on this forum to stop pointing out the many, many, many reasons that--supreme being or no--there could never be a truly omnipotent one, you are going to be waiting...

And worse than that, you'll be wasting you time, and being boring.

The argument that paradoxes are things, so that a being unable to perform one is not able to do everything relies on a very particular definition of omnipotence that few serious theists hold to. In other words, it is a straw man.

Power is the ability to act. An omnipotent being possesses the power to perform all actions. The creation of a four-sided triangle or of a rock so big an omnipotent being cannot lift it is not an action. It is meaningless babble.

There may be very good reasons for not believing in an omnipotent god. The alleged inherent contradictions of omnipotence itself is not one of them.

 

[tsg]

The argument that paradoxes are things, so that a being unable to perform one is not able to do everything relies on a very particular definition of omnipotence that few serious theists hold to. In other words, it is a straw man.

But they're funny.

 

[Klaymore]

The argument that paradoxes are things, so that a being unable to perform one is not able to do everything relies on a very particular definition of omnipotence

Omni: all
Potent: powerful

...that few serious theists hold to. In other words, it is a straw man.

The number of "serious theists" who hold to an argument does not make that argument (or its antithesis) a straw man.

The number of anyone who hold to any argument does not make any argument a logically sound or logically unsound argument. That argument is an argumentum ad populum.

And "Marquis de Carabas," if that is even your real name, is very silly; ergo the impossibility of you ever being right about anything, unless you agree with me. I see your straw man, and raise you an ad hominem...