Intelligent Design gets the smackdown it deserves

[Engimo]

3)How come if pressure is constant in a closed system using gas law ( P*V = m * R * T), why does soda explode when you shake the can?

Firstly, the Ideal Gas Law is PV = nRT, not mRT (where n is the amount of molecules [although, I guess you could be talking about the number of moles]). Anyway, this occurs because when you shake the soda can, you cause bubbles of carbon dioxide to collect on the sides of the can. When you open the can, the can is not a closed system anymore, so the pressure is decreased and the volume of the bubbles expands greatly.

 

[UtahBill]

Firstly, the Ideal Gas Law is PV = nRT, not mRT (where n is the amount of molecules [although, I guess you could be talking about the number of moles]). Anyway, this occurs because when you shake the soda can, you cause bubbles of carbon dioxide to collect on the sides of the can. When you open the can, the can is not a closed system anymore, so the pressure is decreased and the volume of the bubbles expands greatly.

no, it is a lesson from God, like the tree of life in the garden of eden. we are told not to shake the can, but we are mere mortals and cannot resist doing what we are told not to do. It is a lesson for us, a reminder that God is great and infinite in wisdom and we are just little lambs by comparison.
Only this time, there is no need for human sacrifice on a cross, as shaking soda is a minor sin, not a felonious one, like being born in the sin that Adam and Eve committed. Just having to clean up the spilled soda is lesson enough.
See, much simpler than some nasty formula of an "ideal gas law". I mean, if gas was ideal, it would be easier to control. Right?
Now, wasn't that easier? It shows that you can be an ID type teacher without knowing a bunch of useless information about pressures and volumes.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Was mine up before yours was? If so, cool. If not, how dare you.

I'm kidding. This is a great ruling.

I saw yours was way ahead of mine. What am I, blind? How could I have missed that?

You can merge mine too from Today's News. It was up before any of you!

Nah nah na nah nah.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I must say... I was surprised by the ruling. I fully expected this judge appointed by Bush to somehow let ID slip thru the cracks.

What I want to know is
1) do the id supporters really think we are dumb enough to believe ID is of scientific bent or is it just a leagal ploy?
2) are id supporters dumb enough to believe ID is a scientific theory?
3)How come if pressure is constant in a closed system using gas law ( P*V = m * R * T), why does soda explode when you shake the can?


Yup it's happy dance time :2party:

Work like this reaffirms my belief in the ACLU, who took the lead in Dover.
They are also all of the torture and American spying issues.

Q- If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so big that he can't lift it? :mrgreen:

 

[kal-el]

Q- If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so big that he can't lift it? :mrgreen:

Yes, that's one contradictory in his so called "omni" abilities. Here are some more: So god is all-knowing, right? If he is indeed omniscient he knows everything, and if he's omnipotent he can do anything. If he knows everything, there's nothing to learn. Hence, that is something he can't do, learn something new. Here's another:
God is omnipresent right? So that means he can be everywhere, right? And since he's omnipotent he can do anything. So, since he's all powerful he can be nowhere if he wants, and if he is nowhere, he's not omnipresent.

 

[steen]

You guys have listened to much to the fundie nuts who see God as some kind of physical ruler. All that stuff about what "God can do..." is irrelevant. God deals with our inner beliefs and our way of dealing with our surroundings. The fundie idea of God as some avenging sword-swinging hate monger has little relevance in the real world.

But yes, if the God I was presented with was the fundie version,. then I would also immediately forsake belief.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Yes, that's one contradictory in his so called "omni" abilities. Here are some more: So god is all-knowing, right? If he is indeed omniscient he knows everything, and if he's omnipotent he can do anything. If he knows everything, there's nothing to learn. Hence, that is something he can't do, learn something new. Here's another:
God is omnipresent right? So that means he can be everywhere, right? And since he's omnipotent he can do anything. So, since he's all powerful he can be nowhere if he wants, and if he is nowhere, he's not omnipresent.

You could also look at it from an infinite perspective, he has infinite knowledge, and he can still learn at infinite speeds. But too God if he knows everything then yes he has nothing more to learn, but by all powerful he can do 'all poweful' things that are relevent to his creations, not to the fact that he himself doesnt need to learn neting more. besides since his God im sure that he can create someting to learn, :roll: Also how about the idea that sinec he created the universe, and all physical laws et cetra. including our minds and ways of thinking. So now what we consider impossible or contradictory might not be since we think in our logical terms in our dimentional universe. Yes he can reverse his omnipresence, but why would he? that would violate revealed relgion. AND the fact that he CAN do something that violates somthing else doesnt mean that he DOES do it, so therefore it isnt violated, and in turn not contradictory.

 

[steen]

So you are saying that it is a philosophical issue, as we can't know and have no evidence?

OK!

 

[kal-el]

You could also look at it from an infinite perspective, he has infinite knowledge, and he can still learn at infinite speeds. But too God if he knows everything then yes he has nothing more to learn, but by all powerful he can do 'all poweful' things that are relevent to his creations, not to the fact that he himself doesnt need to learn neting more. besides since his God im sure that he can create someting to learn, :roll: Also how about the idea that sinec he created the universe, and all physical laws et cetra. including our minds and ways of thinking. So now what we consider impossible or contradictory might not be since we think in our logical terms in our dimentional universe. Yes he can reverse his omnipresence, but why would he? that would violate revealed relgion. AND the fact that he CAN do something that violates somthing else doesnt mean that he DOES do it, so therefore it isnt violated, and in turn not contradictory.

Dude, it is logically impossible to be bestowed with all of the omni abilities: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html

If god is indeed omniscient, then why, pray tell, did he have to personally stroll down to Soddom to see what was happening? He should already know.

Genesis 18:20
Then the Lord said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gemorrah is so great and their sin so grievious that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry which has reached me. If not, I will know."

Omniscience is a asinine ability, it can't exist. How can an entity know everything that has ever been and ever will be? God could never think, because he would already know evwerything he's going to think, it would be pointless. And he could never be mad. As being mad is just a reaction to something that you don't expect, and nothing gets by god.

 

[Engimo]

Omniscience is a asinine ability, it can't exist. How can an entity know everything that has ever been and ever will be? God could never think, because he would already know evwerything he's going to think, it would be pointless. And he could never be mad. As being mad is just a reaction to something that you don't expect, and nothing gets by god.

Never mind that it would collapse the quantum wave function of the entire universe.

 

[steen]

Now, now. Blind fundyism doesn't deal with logic or with the Bible, only with the selected verses that their local preacher insist rules their lives. That is why it is so much easier to be a fundy. You just have to accept everything your preacher says as absolute truth, even if it is different than yesterday. You don't have to think or remember, just obey. Much easier that way for simple minds and those who don't want to think about anything.

 

[kal-el]

Now, now. Blind fundyism doesn't deal with logic or with the Bible, only with the selected verses that their local preacher insist rules their lives. That is why it is so much easier to be a fundy. You just have to accept everything your preacher says as absolute truth, even if it is different than yesterday. You don't have to think or remember, just obey. Much easier that way for simple minds and those who don't want to think about anything.

Exactly. Heaven forbid one has a logical opinion or question about an incident in the bible. The preacher/minister will just throw out a "supernatural" explanation, hence no explanation is needed then.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?


This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.
Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.
Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.
Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.
What the critics are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

-http://www.carm.org/atheism/God_rock.htm

 

[kal-el]

Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?

Yes, I believe that's what I said.

This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist.

Hey, at least we are trying. The only attempts from bible-thumper's are relying on select quotes from an out-dated book, which has many contradictions, distortions, and flat-out lies.

It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.

Bingo, now you're starting to get it.:lol:

Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

Why does his omnipotence depend on anything? Since you say they're dependent on his nature, he has a restriction, hence he cannot be all-powerful.

For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God.

Why don't you just admit he is not perfect then? It seems you are hinting at that.

His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself.

Did you get this from the bible????? Or is this just opinion?

Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so.

There, thanks for proving my point. There's something he can't do.

Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful.

Sure it does. If he is omnipotent, he can do everything.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotent

Also, He cannot cease to be God.

Geese, contradictions all over the place!:lol:

Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.

Once again, listen up, a perfect entity cannot depend on anything (its own nature), or else it wouldn't be perfect. If he has to depend on something, and his nature causes limits to what he can/cannot do or perform, he isn't omnipotent.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc.

O man, this is too easy.:lol:

But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent.

Uhh, yes it does. Look at the definition.

Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess.

Where in the above defintion do you see this? Or are you making it up as you go along?

This does not mean He can violate His own nature.

Why not? He's omnipotent after all.

If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.

Blah, blah, blah. Your opinions don't carry much weight.

Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself.

Yes, and he could do just that. Since he is omnipotent.

Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.

Geese, you are the one that should be in my shoes, you are probably not aware of it, but you are really limiting your skydaddy here.:2razz:

Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock,

I thought god defies logic? What the hell?

something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size.

Once again, opinion? Or is this presented in scripture?

At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust."

Good job!

A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.

Ok, a boulder.

What the critics are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

Really? Thus far, you haven't refuted it.

 

[HU-210]

Ok, a boulder.

I believe what you are looking for is:

Can an omnipotent God create an assembly of mass with such physical mass that he is unable to lift it?

F=m.a

if m is infinite, than to gain an a (as to create a lift), F has to be infinite. God can lift the rock . However, this would only apply if God was limited by the infinite, which he is not, or the syllogistic problems would apply to him, and it would render him impossible, so by his nature, he needs to be able to exert a force greater than infinite, which renders him impossible too

Mr U

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?


This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.
Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.
Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.
Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.
What the critics are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

-http://www.carm.org/atheism/God_rock.htm

So what you're saying is that because when the word "omnipotence" is correctly used it cannot apply to God then you disagree with the meaning of the word and wish to re-define the word in such a way that it no longer makes any sense but conforms with your religious beliefs.

Why don't you just invent a new word instead of re-inventing your God everytime you come across an argument your god can't pass?

Fact: No omnipotent being can create a rock they cannot lift.

Conclusion: There are no omnipotent beings.

Really rough on you guys that want to think otherwise, but that's the way the real world works.

Yea

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

So what you're saying is that because when the word "omnipotence" is correctly used it cannot apply to God then you disagree with the meaning of the word and wish to re-define the word in such a way that it no longer makes any sense but conforms with your religious beliefs.

Keep in mind that the word omnipotence is an english word used to DESCRIBE God, it depends on if you take it litterally or not. Also note that in Hebrew Bibles the word omnipotence doesnt exist, and in hte new testement only ONCE in revalations. Belief that God can do absolutely anything can lead to certain logical paradoxes (which some argue are not problematic, if God transcends the laws of logic). A simple example, described in more detail under omnipotence paradox, is typically phrased as follows: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? This problem led in the High Middle Ages into invention of the concept of mathematical infinity, and laid basis on infinitesimal calculus.

Combining omnipotence with omniscience into one paradox (which is not scriptural, but merely philosophical), one might ask whether God can pose a question to which he wouldn't know the answer.--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

Fact: No omnipotent being can create a rock they cannot lift.

Conclusion: There are no omnipotent beings.

God is a 'being'?

Also check this out:
Between people of different faiths, or indeed even between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include:

God can not only transcend the laws of physics and probability, but God can also transcend logic (for example, God could create a square circle, or could make one equal two), because God is not bound by any limitations.
God can intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics and probability (i. e., God can create miracles), but it is impossible (and in fact meaningless) to suggest that God can rewrite the laws of logic.
God originally could intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics (miracles), and did do so when creating the universe, but then he self-obligated himself not to do so anymore in order to give humankind free will. Miracles are rare, at best, and always hidden, to prevent humans from being overwhelmed by absolute knowledge of God's existence, which could remove free will.
Omnipotence is sharply limited by neo-Aristotelian philosophers, who independently arose in Judaism, Christianity and Islam during the medieval era, and whose views still are considered normative among the intellectual elite of these faith communities even today. In this view, God never interrupts the set laws of nature; once set, they are never repealed, for God never changes his mind. These philosophers envisioned a connection between the realm of the physical and the intellectual. All physical events are held to be the results of "intellects", some of which are human, some of which are "angels". These intellects can interact in such a way as to seemingly violate the laws of nature. Since God himself created the universe and the laws therein, this is how God works in the world. However, God does not actively intervene in a temporal sense. It has been noted that this view veers away from traditional theism, and moves towards deism.
God's omnipotence does not transcend the laws of physics or logic; rather his omnipotence is measured by his mastery of these laws to which he himself is also subject. God is omnipotent in that he has reached the full potential of his species (mankind) and is as powerful as his species can be. What may appear as a miracle to a mere mortal is simply an example of God's perfect knowledge of the laws of nature and his consequent ability to make use of that omniscience. This position is implied by Mormonism and avoids paradoxes created by a strong literal meaning imputed to the trait of omnipotence by most monotheistic religions. See essential omnipotence.
God is able to do everything that is in accord with his own nature. He has no external power exerted on him, and is the source and origin of all power. The nature of God includes logic, and thus God cannot do anything which is logically absurd. God is able to alter the laws of physics since they are not part of his nature (strictly speaking, though they may be reflective of it), they are only a means to an end. Tertullian summarized this view as follows: "In one sense there will be something difficult even for God — namely, that which He has not done — not because He could not [in terms of raw power], but because He would not [in terms of self-consistency], do it. For with God, to be willing is to be able, and to be unwilling is to be unable; all that He has willed, however, He has both been able to accomplish, and has displayed His ability."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence


FINAL NOTE: We will never understand the mind of God, its like ants understanding the way we (humans) think. We cant possibly comprehend the mind of God, thorught sceince we have come to understand the laws that he has created, and will continue to understand more of him. In thoery if given infinite amount of time we could understand God, becuase we would be infinitly smart BUT there is an end age coming, so sorry for those 'intellectuals' out there but the end time will come before we fully understand God

O yea, and a note to what Steen said, a couple of times you mention "is that in the Bible???" well a lot of questions especially now a days arent answered in the Bible. You cant just go solo scriptoria on issues. Thtats why we have revleatiosn, propheis, and theology. To draw conclusions from scripture, afterall something in the Bible are literal and others are not. like creation for example....was it 7 literal days? or not?

LASTLY:

Merry Christmas to all and happy holidays to the rest!
FYI:holiday means holy day

 

[steen]

O yea, and a note to what Steen said, a couple of times you mention "is that in the Bible???" well a lot of questions especially now a days arent answered in the Bible. You cant just go solo scriptoria on issues. Thtats why we have revleatiosn, propheis, and theology. To draw conclusions from scripture, afterall something in the Bible are literal and others are not. like creation for example....was it 7 literal days? or not?

So it is all about INTERPRETING God to fit your political point of view?

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

So it is all about INTERPRETING God to fit your political point of view?

God goes beyond contemorary politics...everyother person at a church i once passed had the bumper sticker "God is not a Republican or a Democrat" on their car.

Some things that you should know about Christianity is that there are many scriptural versus that are interpeted diffrently and can be theologically justified diffrently by theologians, thats why there hundreds of diffrent denominations. But there are core central Christian beliefs and hte key one is that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. throughout history people ahve wrongly used Christianity to justify there politcal poitns of view, and still do, but ultimitly God wants to be with us His people, and frankly theres more important things then whtere or not God created the world in 7 literal days or not.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Keep in mind that the word omnipotence is an english word used to DESCRIBE God, it depends on if you take it litterally or not.

Not in English. Perhaps in whatever language you speak, but not in english. Omnipotence is derived from the Greek word "omni", meaning "all", and "potency", meaning "never needing Viagra"....

...the word means "all powerful". Don't see the word "God" there at all.

specifically:

omnipotence

n : the state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power

Does it raise any flags of suspicion in you that you have to warp words out of their intended shape to conjure up non-existing compatibility with your preconceptions?

Also note that in Hebrew Bibles the word omnipotence doesnt exist, and in hte new testement only ONCE in revalations. Belief that God can do absolutely anything can lead to certain logical paradoxes (which some argue are not problematic, if God transcends the laws of logic). A simple example, described in more detail under omnipotence paradox, is typically phrased as follows: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Funny, we've been using an almost exactly similar paradox except we use the word "rock". Do you think the difference is significant? I mean, what if we substituted the word "ball". Would we then be able to say that if God can't make lift them he doesn't have the balls?

This problem led in the High Middle Ages into invention of the concept of mathematical infinity, and laid basis on infinitesimal calculus.

No, the mathematical concept of infinity parallels the invention of the zero and the ancient greeks were aware of the existence of both and roundly rejected them, which left them with various insoluble problems that awaited Leibniz and Newton to eventually solve with the calculus, though it took another hundred or hundred and fifty years for the differential calculus to be fully explained with proper definitions of limits and such.

Combining omnipotence with omniscience into one paradox (which is not scriptural, but merely philosophical), one might ask whether God can pose a question to which he wouldn't know the answer.--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

And that's why knowedgeable people avoid the Wikipedia. If I felt like it, and I don't, it's Christmas Eve and I'll be on the roof soon with a deer rifle, I could dig out of my own library the names of the Greeks important in the history of the zero. Aristotle rejected it on religious and philosophical grounds, for example.

God is a 'being'?

Just like Santa Claus. Exactly like Santa Claus, even.

Also check this out:
Between people of different faiths, or indeed even between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include:

Doesn't matter. When I use the word, I use the definition quoted above. That's what the word means. And in that meaning of the word, God is not omnipotent.

God can not only transcend the laws of physics and probability, but God can also transcend logic (for example, God could create a square circle, or could make one equal two), because God is not bound by any limitations.

Well, not, not really. A square is a square, defined under Euclid as parallelogram of four equal sides with the two diagonals of equal length. A circle under Euclid is defined as the locus of points all at constant radius from a defined point.

Anyone arguing that God can make them different is again raping definitions.

God can't transcend logic. God's inventors aren't required to be logical.

God can intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics and probability (i. e., God can create miracles), but it is impossible (and in fact meaningless) to suggest that God can rewrite the laws of logic.

She may be able to do that. There's not one recorded case of it happening, though. Not one.

God originally could intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics (miracles), and did do so when creating the universe, but then he self-obligated himself not to do so anymore in order to give humankind free will. Miracles are rare, at best, and always hidden, to prevent humans from being overwhelmed by absolute knowledge of God's existence, which could remove free will.

Actually if God is omnipotent (see above) and omniscient (all knowing. And when I say all, that means total knowledge, ie the set of information not known to God is indistinguishable from the empty set), and perfect, ie She's not a screwup (the set containing God's mistakes is indistinguishable from the empty set), then free will is not possible.

The explanation is obvious given the three defintions above and the presumption that the God-thing did create the universe.

Omnipotence is sharply limited by neo-Aristotelian philosophers,[/qoute]

Well, the neo-Aristotleians can put limits on God if they want. Why do you accept them? Again, use the modern definition of the word listed above.

God's omnipotence does not transcend the laws of physics or logic;

Then that conception of God is not omnipotent as defined. Duh.

FINAL NOTE: We will never understand the mind of God, its like ants understanding the way we (humans) think.

We have as much chance of understanding the mind of god as we do of visualizing and comprehending nothing.

In fact, the two operations are identical since there is no God.

 

[steen]

God goes beyond contemorary politics...everyother person at a church i once passed had the bumper sticker "God is not a Republican or a Democrat" on their car.

Could you please tell that to those republicans who push the very idea of a partisan God (incl. judging from your sig, YOU!)

Some things that you should know about Christianity

I hope you are joking?

but ultimitly God wants to be with us His people, and frankly theres more important things then whtere or not God created the world in 7 literal days or not.

Glad you agree that the creationist insistence against physical evidence is wrong.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

"Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot move it?"
By John Baskette, ©Copyright 1994 by John Baskette.
That old objection to the doctrine of the omnipotence of God was raised recently on USENET in the newsgroup soc.religion.christian. USENET is an enormous collection of electronic discussion groups distributed as "network news" through a world wide computer network known as the internet. Many of you may not be familiar with computer networks and bulletin boards, and I won't be explaining about them here, but I will say, the on-line debates in these newsgroups between atheists and believers of all types are quite lively and often informative.
The Christians in that newsgroup answered the objection very well. To speak of an almighty God creating an object that He cannot lift is to posit a logically contradictory state of affairs. It is a variation on the old question, "What happens when an immovable object (the stone) meets an irresistible force (God)?" The answer is that both an irresistible force and an immovable object cannot exist together in the same universe without creating a logical contradiction. If reason is valid then to speak of the two in the same sentence is to speak nonsense. Similarly, it is nonsense to speak of God creating a stone that he cannot lift.
Another equally valid answer offered in the newsgroup is that God cannot do anything whatsoever. God can only do what is logically possible.
These answers did not satisfy the objectors. Their retort was to accuse the Christians of equivocating. "You admit that there are things that God cannot do, therefore you are admitting that God is not really omnipotent! You have only proved the case against the self-contradictory and self-stultifying Christian conception of God."
At this point I entered the fray to point out that the definition of omnipotence has never meant what the objectors say it meant. The historical understanding of omnipotence never meant that God can do anything whatsoever. The objection is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst, merely an intellectually dishonest straw man argument.
My response did not go unchallenged. Here is what one poster (David) asked:
However, I gather from the discussions that, in spite of the logical contradictions involved, many people are arguing that god is omnipotent in the all-inclusive sense you wish to avoid.
Also, just how would you properly define this 'historical sense' of omnipotent? The paragraph above just says that it is not really omnipotence as defined in all the dictionaries. How, precisely, should it be defined?
Here was my response:
My earlier post pointed out that the historical sense of terms such as omnipotence were never construed to be an all-inclusive anything at all which, if true, renders mute the various objections to Christian teaching based on various logical paradoxes.
To demonstrate my point further and to answer David's question, I will give various definitions of omnipotence as found in various theologians. First, however, I would like to point out that the Oxford English Dictionary (if not some of the less authoritative available dictionaries) does recognize a specifically Christian and theological use of the term.
Here are three definitions given in _The Compact Edition Of The Oxford English Dictionary, Complete Text Reproduced Micrographically, Volume I A-O_, Oxford University Press:
Omnipotent,
1. Strictly said of God (or of a deity) or His attributes: Almighty or infinite in power.
2. gen. All-powerful; having full or absolute power or authority; having unlimited or very great power, force, or influence; exceedingly strong or mighty. b. humourously. Capable of anything; unparalleled; utter, arrant; huge, 'mighty'.
3. absol. or as sb. An omnipotent being; spec. (with the) the Almighty God.
The first definition is the one used in Christian theology. It is not the same as "Capable of anything".
Infinite should be thought of in terms of the primary dictionary definition of "subject to no limitation or external determination". I'll give an explanation of the Infinity of God from Berkhoff shortly, but in order to illuminate the concept of "Power", I would like to first quote from _A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Volume One_ by James Oliver Buswell, Jr., Ph. D.; a professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis.
On pages 63-63 he explains omnipotence this way:
"There are indeed certain problems with reference to the meaning of Omnipotence which need to be considered. In the first place, omnipotence does not mean that God can do anything, but it means that He can do with power anything that power can do. He has all the power that is or could be."
"Can God make two plus two equal six? This is a question which is frequently asked by skeptics and by children. We reply by asking how much power it would take to bring about this result. The absurdity of the question is not too difficult to see. Would the power of a ton of dynamite make two plus two equal six? Or the power of an atom bomb? Or of a hydrogen bomb? When these questions are asked it is readily seen that the truth of the multiplication tables is not in the realm of power. Power has nothing to do with it. When we assert that God is omnipotent, we are talking about power. In the discussion of the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable truth of God we shall show that truth is of the very essence of His character but not in the realm of power; and we shall consider those Scriptures which plainly declare that 'it is impossible for God to lie' (Heb. 6:18)"
Most of the "paradoxes" commit this same basic error. Even those that seem to deal with "power" such as "Can God create an immovable stone" are actually asking if God can bring about a logically contradictory state of affairs. The answer is no, but it does not show that God does not have infinite power or that God cannot do with power anything that power can do. Power cannot bring into being a contradictory state of affairs.
Some understanding of the Infinity of God would be helpful at this point. From _Systematic Theology_ by L. Berkhoff, (revised version 1941, reprinted 1979 by Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids), pp. 59-60"
"C. The Infinity of God. The infinity of God is that perfection of God by which He is free from all limitations. In ascribing it to God we deny that there are or can be any limitations to the divine Being or attributes. It implies that He is in no way limited by the universe, by this space-time world, or confined to the universe. It does not involve His identity with the sum-total of existing things, nor does it exclude the co-existence of derived and finite things, to which He bears relation. The infinity of God must be conceived as intensive rather than extensive, and should not be confused with boundless extension, as if God were spread out through the entire universe, one part here, and another there, for God has not body and therefore no extension. Neither should it be regarded as a merely negative concept, though it is perfectly true that we cannot form a positive idea of it. It is a reality in God fully comprehended only by Him. We distinguish various aspects of God's Infinity. 1. His Absolute Perfection. This is the infinity of the Divine Being considered in itself. It should not be understood in a quantitative, but in a qualitative sense: it qualifies all the communicable attributes of God. Infinite power is not an absolute quantum, but an exhaustless potency of power;..."
With a definition like that, you may think that Berkhoff by saying that God is "free from all limitations" means that God can do anything at all. Yet even Berkhoff says on p. 80:
"In that sense we can speak of the potentia absoluta, or absolute power, of God. This position must be maintained over against those who, like Schleiermacher and Strauss, hold that God's power is limited to that which He actually accomplishes. But in our assertion of the absolute power of God it is necessary to guard against misconceptions. The Bible teaches us on the one hand that the power of God extends beyond that which is actually realized, Gen. 18:14; Jer. 32:27; Zech. 8:6; Matt. 3:9; 26:53. We cannot say, therefore, that what God does not bring to realization, is not possible for Him. But on the other hand it also indicates that there are many things which God cannot do. He can neither lie, sin, change, nor deny Himself, Num. 23:19; I Sam. 15:29; II Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:18; Jas. 1:13,17. There is no absolute power in Him that is divorced from His perfections, and in virtue of which He can do all kinds of things which are inherently contradictory."

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

[CONTINUED]

When we speak of "no limitations" we are talking about rational categories or limitations within a rational category. Within the realm of power, we mean that God can do anything that it is logically possible for power to do. I.e., There is no limit on which powers in the category of "powers" that God can exercise. The category of powers, however, is itself restricted to the realm of things that are logically possible. This is why we are justified in using the "omni" prefix while maintaining that God cannot do anything whatsoever.
That is why even Berkhoff, while maintaining a "no limits" definition of infinite says, "There is no absolute power in Him that is divorced from His perfections". I.e., he supports the idea that there are rational restrictions on the category of "powers" when he says that there is no power of a certain kind.
Here is a definition for omnipotence as given in _The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology_ edited by Alan Richardson and John Bowden, 1983, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, in an article by Brian Hebblethwaite who is in turn quoting from "A.Kenny, _The God of the Philosophers_,1979:
"A more satisfactory definition has been provided by A. Kenny: omnipotence is 'the possession of all logically possible powers which it is logically possible for a being with the attributes of God to possess."
Here is a definition given in _Christian Theology, Systematic and Biblical_, arranged and compiled by Emery H. Bancroft, D.D., Late professor of Bible Doctrine and Systematic Theology at the Baptist Bible Seminary, Johnson City, New York, revised edition, 1925, on p. 68:
"C. Omnipotence. By this we mean the power of God to do all things which are objects of power, whether with or without the use of means, Gen. 17:1.
NOTE He performs natural wonders, Gen 1:1-3; Isa 44:24; Heb. 1:3; Spiritual wonders, II Cor. 4:6; Eph. 1:19; Eph. 3:20. He has power to create new things, Matt. 3:9; Rom. 4:17; after his own pleasure; Psa. 115:3; Eph. 1:11. There is nothing impossible to Him: Gen. 18:14; Matt. 19:26.
1. Omnipotence does not imply power to do that which is not an object of power; as, for example, that which is self-contradictory or contradictory to the nature of God.
NOTE Self-contradictory things are not included in the exercise of God's omnipotence.- such as the making of a past event to have not occurred (hence the uselessness of praying: "May it be that much good was done"); drawing a shorter than straight line between two given points; putting two separate mountains together without a valley between them. Things contradictory to the nature of God; for God to lie, to sin. to die. To do such things would not imply power, but impotence. God has all the power that is consistent with infinite perfection - all power to do what is worthy of Himself."
So far I have quoted only Protestants. Here is a Roman Catholic author. From _The Voice from the Whirlwind, The problem of Evil and the Modern World_ by Stephen j. Vicchio, professor of philosophy at the College of Notre Dame in Baltimore, Maryland, Christian Classics, Inc., Westminster, Maryland.
(BTW - this is a terrific book on the "problem of evil", it is essentially his Phd dissertation put out in book form.)
On p. 47, after quoting from Frederick Ferre's _Basic Modern Philosophy of Religion_, Vicchio writes:
"Ferre rightly suggests that when we say that God is omnipotent, philosophers, as well as the common man, may mean by the term one of two things. Either (a) an omnipotent being is one who can do absolutely anything, or (b) an omnipotent being is one who can do anything that is logically possible. For reasons that will become apparent later, we must also offer a third formulation of God's omnipotence: (c) an omnipotent being is one who can do anything that is logically possible and is consistent with his other attributes."
Vicchio goes on to examine each of these definitions in turn. Definition (a) which is what has been used in postings to raise objections to the existence of the Christian God, Vicchio finds used in the writings of Descartes, but not in the writings of Christian theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas.
This leads to one of the main points of my earlier brief posting. The historical definition or understanding of omnipotence has always recognized the problems inherent in definition (a) which is why it is not the definition used by the church historically. It maybe that some Christians have held and tried to defend such a definition (such as Descartes), but for the most part, this definition is imposed on Christianity by those who wish to refute Christian conceptions by raising various objections. The objections (whether by intention or ignorance) are straw man arguments.
The definition of omnipotence like that of (b) or (c) which limits omnipotence to the category of things logically possible is the definition used by the church historically. My earlier quote from Augustine indicated as much. Here it is again, from my abridged version of _The City of God_, an abridged Version from the Translation by Gerald G. Walsh, S.J.; Demetrius B. Zema, S.J.; Grace Monahan, O.S.U.; and Daniel J. Honan on p. 109 which quotes from Augustine's book 5, chapter 10:
"We do not put the life of God and the foreknowledge of God under any necessity when we say that God must live an eternal life and must know all things. Neither do we lessen his power when we say He cannot die or be deceived. This is the kind of inability which, if removed, would make God less powerful than He is. God is rightly called omnipotent, even though He is unable to die and be deceived. We call Him omnipotent [here is the definition you did not acknowledge from the earlier post David!] because He does whatever He wills to do and suffers nothing that He does not will to suffer. He would not, of course be omnipotent, if He had to suffer anything against His will. It is precisely because He is omnipotent that for Him some things are impossible."
Aquinas has a similar conception of omnipotence. On p. 163-164 of _Summa Theologica, Volume I, ques. 15 ans. 3, (Mcgraw Hill, New York, 1963, Aquinas says:
"Whatever implies being and nonbeing simultaneously is incompatible with the absolute possibility which falls under divine omnipotence. Such a contradiction is not subject to it, not from any impotence in God, but because it simply does not have the nature of being feasible or possible. Whatever, then, does not involve a contradiction is in the realm of the possible with respect to which God is omnipotent. Whatever involves a contradiction is not within the scope of omnipotence because it cannot qualify for possibility. Better, however, to say that it cannot be done, rather than God cannot do it."
An excellent old Puritan work is _The Existence and Attributes of God_ by Stephen Charnock (1628-1680). I read a small portion of a 1979 reprint of this work published by Klock & Klock Christian Publishers of Minneapolis. He defines omnipotence in terms of God having infinite power, yet he too gives a lengthy consideration to things that are impossible for God to do.
My point is that when Christians respond to various objections to the various "omni-xxx"s of God in a way that appears to lessen the particular "omni" in question, they are not equivocating, conceding or redefining terms at all. They are only explaining what is the historic Christian teaching as found in all branches of the faith.

- http://answers.org/apologetics/omnipotence.html

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blizzard Warrior
God goes beyond contemorary politics...everyother person at a church i once passed had the bumper sticker "God is not a Republican or a Democrat" on their car.

Could you please tell that to those republicans who push the very idea of a partisan God (incl. judging from your sig, YOU!)

Quote:
Some things that you should know about Christianity

I hope you are joking?

Quote:
but ultimitly God wants to be with us His people, and frankly theres more important things then whtere or not God created the world in 7 literal days or not.

Glad you agree that the creationist insistence against physical evidence is wrong.

Theres many ways that Republicans wrongly use God for their side...but there are certain issues which God has a clear stance one. but like tax cuts, or health care? i mean serouisly theres more important things that God wants us to be concerned about. I dont recall stating that i was a creationist, i beleive in the genesis account of creation, but ultimitly that account is partly subjective to the reader, and i dont beleive that it was several literal days. again the word day is used to replace a hebrew or greek word for a measurement of time that could be thousands of years for all we know.

 

[kal-el]

Theres many ways that Republicans wrongly use God for their side...

Yep. And it's not just limited to Republicans. Almost every war was waged with one side saying "God is on our side".

but there are certain issues which God has a clear stance one. but like tax cuts, or health care?

Really, please enlighten me. And before you make all these assertions, please provide some form of evidence for your sky pixie, thanks.

i mean serouisly theres more important things that God wants us to be concerned about.

That's assuming such an entity even exists. Of course, you must have faith. But faith is in no way, grounded in reality. Faith thrives on ignorance, hence to maintain faith, I would say one must maintain ignorance. The truly sad part of the situation is that all the people who have the whull pulled over their eyes by certain religions, have children, and they brainwash them into blindly accepting the same lies and absurdities that they themselves accepted.:lol:
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html

I dont recall stating that i was a creationist, i beleive in the genesis account of creation, but ultimitly that account is partly subjective to the reader, and i dont beleive that it was several literal days. again the word day is used to replace a hebrew or greek word for a measurement of time that could be thousands of years for all we know.

Really? if it was thousands of years, and Adam lived for 930 years, according to your subjective thinking, I believe that would make Adam quite old.:lol: