We were a major threat to the rule of the Spaniards in the Caribbean/South America
We had a very strong navy and we were just discovering new places ourselves.

The threat was very real to the Spaniards.

Religion was not the motivating factor, it was to destroy a threat to the Spanish naval superiority.

They also got pis5ed off at the Dutch too, as they were discovering trade and expanding their borders, but the Spaniards were defeated by the weather and then the Irish topography as they tried to escape and finally Rule Britannia!

It will probably take the drum beaters and the flag wavers to stop doing it and let people make up their own minds as opposed to having this rammed down our throats.

I found this quote ...

From the BBC


Will he be back?

Careful, or you might get Spider disputing that, just because he wants to be the god-particle

Like it ...

I had a case of Shrodinger's once ... penicillin clears that right up in a week

Throw him in jail ...

Would these dontating clients have to assume the Missionary position?

It is a classic example of total indoctrination. The people love Kim because they are told to.
Every aspect of their lives is controlled by the govt.

They are at the polar opposite to the US in terms of information.

The US has too much info for its people to disseminate accurately, and the Koreans have nothing.

Both work equally well at keeping people in the dark.

What with my obvious intelligence and Abra's wasted mind, Spider is trying to conjure up a worthy adversary.

All we need is JB's very attractive butt, and the unholy triumvirate, the Axis of Evil will be complete.

... and its goodnight from me

... and its goodnight from him

Is god supposed to have an ego?

This one ...


Let's dissect and analyze the omnipotence contradiction argument.
It asserts the following:

1. God is omnipotent; therefore, he can do anything.
2. God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.
3. If so, then his power is limited, because he cannot do something.
4. If not, then that is also a limitation of power and something he cannot do.

This argument is an argument that tries to force a person into a position where he must, in order to answer the question, limit the powers of God and thus, admitting that God is not omnipotent.

The main emphasis on the contradiction is number 2. This is asking us to weigh God's omnipotent ability to create rocks to his omnipotent ability to lift rocks.

However, God is omnipotent, thus he can lift any rock that is created. It does not matter what weight it is, God can lift it. Hence, no rock too heavy for God to lift can exist, therefore such an existence of a rock is an impossibility.

Well this is an objection of God's omnipotence because he cannot create this special rock. He cannot create logical impossibilities therefore he is not omnipotent.

In other words, number 4 - God is not omnipotent because he cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift - thus, something he cannot do - which means God is not omnipotent.

Therefore, the following argument is developed:

1. If God is omnipotent, he can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift
2. God cannot create this rock
3. God is not omnipotent

After hitting the books a bit, this argument model is called a modus tollens or the following:

p -> q
~q
------
~p

This is a pretty sound argument, isnt it?

Feels like we're being trapped in a corner. Well, let's focus on the arguments more specifically, as we have been. Let's look at this critically and think about it. Since we stated above that no such object can exist, I agree with number 2.

1. God is omnipotent
2. He can create and do anything
3. A rock* is a thing
4. Hence, God can create a rock

*The rock is the reference to our argument - the rock God created that is so heavy that He cannot lift it.

A theist believes God is the creator and ruler of the universe will agree with the first point, therefore the problem must begin with 2.

Is omnipotence defined as being able to do anything and everything? Technically no, it doesn't. A theist says:

5. God is maximally powerful.

Don't confuse yourself. We situate God as the person with the maximum power and can do anything that can be done. Can God create the rock then?

6. God can create the rock.
7. God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.

This is a direct oxymoron. This rock cannot exist as we cannot fathom it existing. By definition the rock cannot exist. If this cannot exist, then it cannot be brought into existence and cannot be created. Therefore number 7 is a fallacy and it's a contradiction and saying:

8. God can create that which cannot be created.

Hence, 4 and 1 are not solid arguments and 3 is wrong, because this rock is not a thing at all because it's not logically "existable."

Theism isn't looking too good right now.

Returning to argument 5, if God is maximally powerful, then he can create stars, planets, animals etc... This means that God can do anything that can be done and he can create things that do not now exist. As long as their existence does not trigger a contradiction.

What if there was a God that could create the illogical absurdities and have the powers of the maximally powerful being?

Therefore, wouldn't he be stronger because he can do the same thing and more? But this is supporting argument 7, and we know that argument 7 is just not solid enough to base a premise on because oxymorons cannot be created.

9. If a being can't create which cannot exist then he is limited.

But this statement has holes in it. It's not asserting anything different, it doesn't assert anything new. It's also not saying anything about the very nature of God himself. If the argument cannot assert to the nature of God, then the very nature of the contradiction becomes an absurdity.

Therefore, God cannot be faulted for not creating something that cannot exist because that which cannot exist cannot be created. In conclusion, God does not lack the ability to create that which cannot exist, because there is no such ability.

Theists claim, hence:

10. God is a maximally powerful being.
11. That which cannot exist cannot be created.

No contradiction exists now. The omnipotence of God has not been demonstrated to be false. The idea of omnipotence has been determined as a logical absurdity. In other words, refer to number 11.

But from that we get omnipotent except ...

Not the finite, but the adjustable

You mean the rule that says you are always right?

Im never going to adhere to that rule.

Religion has many contradictory holes in it and as such they are there to poke.

Im not mocking you, you take it as mocking because you are obviously affected by the reasoning that is presented and are afraid that if you look too closely, you may leave the comfort zone that is your religion.

Your skin is too thin to get involved in a debate where people disagree with you.



Again, making up the rules to suit.
If they dont fit your ideas then you discount them until they do.

EXACTLY!!!!

Check that man out!!!

I said exactly the same thing in the For Atheists thread

Im Spartacus!

I think also he wanted me reported for purportedly spreading lies about christianity ....

It is claimed that the God of the bible is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (in all places at the same time), omniscient (He knows everything), and omnibenevolent (He only does things that are all good).

As you shall soon see, not only are these concepts utterly impossible from a logical standpoint, but for the God of the Judeo-Christian bible, they are mutually exclusive with each other, and therefore no such being as the Christian God can possibly exist.

Before I get to the logic behind these statements, first you should know that each of those concepts is refuted in the bible. That's right. The bible, your ONLY source of information about God, does not support these strange notions.

Omnipotence:

The bible says "With God, all things are possible." But there are instances in the bible where God cannot in fact do everything.

In Judges 1:19 we read: "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

So, if you want to triumph over God, get yourselves some chariots of iron-- that's the way.

Can God destroy the Devil? Then why doesn't He? If God is the most compassionate of any entity, then why doesn't He release people from the hell that He created, the hell that He sent people to? Is it because He is unable to do so? Or unwilling? Or not completely merciful?

Omnipresence:

Christians claim that there God is everywhere, all places, at the same time. He fills the universe with his presence. But there are biblical passages which refute this bizarre notion. Let us first consider Deuteronomy 23:12-14.

"Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:
And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee."

Christians should be embarrassed that this absurd passage is in their holy book. It is one of the most absurd things I have ever had the misfortune to read. It is apparent that God is too easily offended by a natural process which he knows all humans are subject to, even Jesus Christ. He himself designed the process, as claimed by his believers. Yet the Almighty seems awful squeamish-- perhaps he is afraid he might step in something.

Omniscience:

There are real problems with this idea.

If God is omniscient, he should NEVER change his mind.

Think about that carefully.

How could someone who knows the future change his mind?
Changing his mind means that he did not know what he was going to do or what was going to happen, and shows his uncertainty.

But the bible is full of instances where God changes his mind.

For example, first is Exodus 32:14. After the incident when God's Chosen People worshipped the Golden Calf, God decided that He would destroy them all, and raise up some other nation, but Moses begged and pleaded on their behalf, "and the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

Now consider this for a moment. God knows all things, past and present, including His own future decisions. Therefore, did He really intend to destroy the Israelites? Or did He just bear false witness?

There is also Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

If He "did it not", then He knew from the beginning that He would not do it, and if He told someone that He was going to do it, then He was lying.

Omnibenevolence:

Omnibenevolent means that God only does things that are good. Period.
Is everything in this world good?

He Himself will let you know that He is not omnibenevolent.

Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."
Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."

Why would He do these things if He only does that which is good? The bible is filled with examples of god doing evil deeds.

If God is omniscient, He knows that in a week a tornado is going to rip through Kansas and kill a hundred people, wipe out twenty-thousand homes, and destroy three churches.

He is omnipotent, and is therefore able to prevent it.

If He was omnibenevolent, He would. Why doesn't He?

Many Christians will claim that the destruction, death and misery is God's Will.

Is then His Will omnibenevolent? Apparently not.

They say that it must work out to some good end that we cannot understand... it works into his Divine Plan. And yet, these same Christians are the first ones to pray to God for him NOT TO INSTITUTE His Divine Plan!

They are the ones to pray that the tornado ceases, or turns a mile to the west, or skips over their house. They should not presume to know better than their god, and to try to alter His plan. And then if their house was not destroyed, they get down on their knees amid all the destruction and death and thank their god.

What an obscene gesture.

There are logical reasons why omnipotence is impossible.

The old joke spoken by atheist comedian George Carlin: “Could God make a rock so big that He Himself could not move it?” is a real illustration of how omnipotence is impossible.

Can God make something so complex that he himself cannot understand it?
Can God make something greater than himself?
If he can't, he is not all-powerful.

Can omnipotence exist with omniscience? No.
If God cannot change his mind, then he is not all powerful.
If he does change his mind, then he did not know the future. Saying that there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent and omnipresent god is like saying there are such things as square circles -- such a thing cannot and does not exist: it is a contradiction.

This is solid logical evidence that shows absolutely that such a being proposed as the Judeo-Christian God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent) is utterly impossible.

Okay, let's see some believer start twisting those verses, and show us why they mean something other than what they really say...

The holy spirit was probably whisky
The second coming, was probably rare, or induced by viagra
and they couldnt hold a nativity play in the church as they couldnt find 3 wise men and a virgin!

the god concept is a conspiracy theory ...

Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe that is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning.

According to Vilenkin,

Vilenkin believes in a multiverse and eternal inflation.

He admits that there's no proof of eternal inflation, just that there's suitable evidence that the theory is correct.

That's fine, and I find theoretical science fascinating. His theories include that countless baby universes are made from big bangs as a result of dark energy which he ties to his conservational constant.

Heady stuff that I can't pretend to fully understand but basically it seems as if universes make new universes.

I don't quite see the connection between that and a universe being created out of nothing. Wouldn't the matter and energy come from the universe that spawned it?

Of course I then read something about each universe not necessarily having the same physical laws and at that point my head hurts to much to go on.

I still dont get the god link though ... but Im prepared to listen.

I always thought girls went to the toilet in pairs ...

Maybe she was big enough to go on her own?