The thing about the Christian God is that it's pretty much impossible to argue against him because how can you argue against something that's omnipotent and omniscient? I believe God is Morgan Freeman.
Printable View
The thing about the Christian God is that it's pretty much impossible to argue against him because how can you argue against something that's omnipotent and omniscient? I believe God is Morgan Freeman.
Actually its quite easy since omnipotence has a paradox within it, and if you add in benevolence to gods concept you end up with the problem of evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgin Mary
Omnipotence paradox example:
Can god create something more powerful then him?
Can god make something so heavy even he cant lift it?
Christianity doesn't believe that evil is more powerful than God. They believe God will ultimately win.Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101101entor
And what's this thing about lifting? :S
Yes because omnipotence by definition means they can do anything, including defeat a paradox.Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101101entor
i'm catholic, although i've commited the sin of sodomy several times. a life time in hell, nice...
No it doesn't, omnipotence means all powerful, not the ability to do anything, thats omnilibety a concept not often associated with god, plus one refuted by almost all religious and philosophical scholars whom have reviewed the case for gods ability to override logic. No matter how you put it the concept of a triangle can never have 3 sides without ceasing to be the concept originally held.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
Paradox's are a matter omnipotence cannot defeat, also even if it was accepted it could you could not make an argument saying it did without it being circular in that you cant avoid a criticism of a concept by useing the concept and ignoring the criticism, unless you want to commit the homoculas fallacy, but that aint very constructive :)
!synergy: now try reading that post, then respond again.
I knew someone would come out with that eventually. I think it's subject to debate, because no one understands what God is. God is beyond our logic so we cannot use logic in describing him. That's what I meant by he's hard to argue against. If he is beyond our comprehension and logic then we cannot explain him because we explain things through our comprehension of them and our logic. Just like saying he's infinit is hard to understand because a lot of people can't comprehend something that has and always will exist with no beginning or end. If God truly is omnipotent then he can bend logic at his will. The argument gets really confusing of course because of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101101entor
Thats not really true though, as "he" denotes a very specific concept of what god is, as presented in the bible. Hence the exact parts of his concept are infact known hence disprovable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgin Mary
The existence of a god or diety on the other hand is like you say impossible to argue against, and may or may not exist. A god though which fits the profile of the christian god though, can not exist. So ether way christens are ether worshiping a non-existent god, or the wrong one.
A transcended god could not then be male, nore be like a human (as the bible calims). Nore would it be possible to know weather god is all powerful, benevolent or anything else. It would be a complete unknown and any claims about god would then be meaningless. The god described by Christianity does not fit in to this category.Quote:
If he is beyond our comprehension and logic then we cannot explain him because we explain things through our comprehension of them and our logic.
The concept of infinity is a human one, we hold a concept, unless god deceives us and changes what we believe that concept to be, we will still note if the concept we hold is not what god infact possesses.Quote:
Just like saying he's infinit is hard to understand because a lot of people can't comprehend something that has and always will exist with no beginning or end.
A better argument is, (put forward by Descartes) "God cannot make it so, that i never existed"Quote:
If God truly is omnipotent then he can bend logic at his will. The argument gets really confusing of course because of this.
This is inrifutable, since your existence now shows that you have infact existed an unalterable fact, anything could be changed, but it would still remain true that i, or you did infact exist at one point, even if this is known only to god itself.
Which is why this debate can go on forever. If we cannot explain God using our terms then we can neither prove nor disprove his existence by doing so. We can try to though. Referring to God as a male is simply the norm, and is accepted. I believe God to be a masculine entity, though not a male. Though God, as aforementioned, could be anything. S/he/it could be a gender we not yet know of, as again proving that we cannot describe God. As for the last point, I see where you're coming from. Like, if God is illogical how is it we exist within a logical realm as the two are not relative. This once again proves our limits. What we see as logic may only go so far, what God sees as logic may seem illogical to us but it would be perfectly logical to him. For example, how can we define existence? By simply thinking something up, even if it has no physical form contructed of atomic or subatomic particles, does it not exist, even if only in your mind? As you can see this argument can go on forever because it's simply what we know versus what we don't know, and you can't disprove something's existence without proof it does not exist but you can't prove something without evidence either.Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101101entor
I'm ignoring most points here because they seem to be mainly about the existence (or non-) of the Christian God, and any mention of possible gods has already been stated. This is just to say that Descartes' argument on God is (by nearly all modern philosophers) though to be heavily flawed and circular, especially in reference to existence, where he presumes his own existence and uses his presumption as proof for it (again, circular).