In all honesty Bill, Christians don't appear to be thinking very deeply when they start a thread like this one. Spider is trying to claim that the Big Bang theory and biological evolution (which must also be assumed if we're assuming the universe evolved from Big Bang) point to the biblical myth as being the true nature of God.

That's truly absurd Bill. His arguments are totally unfounded and nothing more than a lame attempt to sound like he knows what he's talking about when in fact he doesn't.

This is the same man who argues against evolution. This is the same man who argues that the 6-day creation in the Bible was indeed done in 6 Earth days. He clearly wants to have his cake and eat it too.

He's not researching anything, he's just trying to build a case that might sound good to an uneducated layman. No scholar (who doesn't also have a religious agenda) would even remotely give this argument any merit. It's truly a non-argument. Especially when Spider claims that his conclusions must only point to Christianity. That is truly laughable Bill.

As I stated earlier, this whole scenario would clearly point to pantheism before it would point to external human-like God's who demand blood sacrifices for disobedience.

I think Spider should be put on the spot. He should have to fess up which he truly believes in: Evolution and the Big Bang, or that God created Adam from the dust of the earth after only 6-days of building all creation.

Once he decides where he stands on those issues then maybe it would be fitting to talk in more depth about these things. Clearly he has an agenda. Everyone on the site knows that he's a hardcore religious fundamentalists. He even admits it himself and takes offense when anyone makes fun of fundamentalists. He has demanded in the past that the entire bible is the infallible word of God, every word of it!

He has demanded in the past that evolution never happened, that science is all wrong, and that God created the world in 6-Earth days precisely just like the Bible says.

Now he wants to use the science of the Big Bang that says that the universe is 14 billion years old and everything in it evolved from that Big Bang. And he wants to claim that this points directly at the biblical myth and nothing else?

That utter inconsistency on his part. Clearly he's just grabbing at straws to try to force his mythology to be true, using outrageous claims that he has already denounced in favor of the biblical myth.

Now you want to claim that he isn't blinded by a predetermined agenda? He already had his conclusions in mind long before he started doing any so-called 'research'. He didn't go out seeking truth to see where it leads. He's trying to make a case for his pet mythology. There's no question about what he's doing. It's OBVIOUS.

He's not out to search for truth. He's out to prove that the Bible is true at all cost. Even if it means using totally irrational arguments to try to claim that the bible is the only rational answer.

It's a joke Bill. His PREDETERMINED AGENDA is CLEAR.

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...

This is all BS. The anthropic principle has to do with how the universe is constructed: Strength of gravity, Strength of gravity vs strength of electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, etc. The anthropic principle was written in an attempt to address the improbability of our universe existing in it's current form or any form other than just heat energy.

The math behind anthropic principle has never been refuted in the 30 years since it was preposed. There is no doubt that the universe is so improbable that it shouldn't exist. You make these statements like 'So the anthropic principle is really an invalid way of looking at things. " and people believe you. The thing is, if you actually know what the anthropic principle is, you also know you are lying about what it is and it's relevance. I think that you don't know it or understand it and just blow smoke about it because you couldn't accept me being right about anything.

The relevance to the discussion is that the universe is so improbable that the only reasonable answer to the creation of the universe is a necessary being.

Abra,

God does not change, it's your perception that is skewed. I'm not going into the discussion with you again, I think you are a lost cause. You obstinately reject any argument which disagrees with your thesis, on the basis that it disagrees with your thesis. You are unreasonable in this matter. You don't listen to other's arguments. Your "arguments" against the Christian God's existence go something like "I don't believe it, because it's contradictory and self-inconsistent" (Hint: That "argument" is a statement of belief and a gratuitous assertion taped together, not an actual logical argument). I'm not worried about if you believe or not, I've tried. But for you to lie about the Anthropic principle while claiming to have been a math professor is beyond the pale. And for you to insist that God changed throughout the Bible, but reject out of hand every argument against that line of thinking shows that you are unreasonable.

Why are you so proud of your ignorance?

This post is just a rehash of arguments which I refuted before, so I won't spend must time on this. But I would like to point out how you aren't thinking about the issue, you are simply trying to poke holes.

God's omnipotence is limited by contradiction. It would be a contradiction of God's nature for God to create something too complex for him to understand.

I come here, like many, to share my beliefs and discuss them reasonably. You are only here to mock. You don't listen to reason. You reject refutations without offering arguments to the contrary. Why are you here? What do you get out of being unreasonable? Do you walk away feeling like you had a victory, when all you did was ignore every rule that covers reasoning and debate?

EDIT:

Omnipotence is only limited by contradiction, this is accepted in philosophical circles, but not understood by many outside of philosophical circles. So any "argument" against God's existence that is based on a contradiction is false. The definition of omnipotence excludes contradictions. It's a child's thinking to ask if God can create a rock so heavy he cannot pick it up. You are obviously an intelligent man, so put down the children's toys and actually enter this conversation as an adult, with reason and logic.

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.

My skin is too thin to deal with someone who ignores every rule of civilized debate. My skin is too thin to deal with someone who presents childish arguments and pretends that they cannot be answered. Those questions were thought about 2000 years ago, if not longer.

If I make an argument, you must address it or it stands. If my arguments stand, then I win the debate, it's that simple. But for someone to reject an argument on a whim, means that person has failed in the debate. If you want to discuss with me (you seemed interested earlier, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong) then let's discuss as two reasonable men. Okay?

Pray tell, what rule did I make up?

Here is the answer of how the Milky Way was created according to Greek Mythology!

Cronos devours his offspring

Cronos ruler of the Universe started to swallow his offspring at birth. But once the procedure had been repeated several times, her wife and sister Rhea 1, feeling for her children as Gaia for her own, deceived her husband by wrapping a stone in clothes and giving it to him to swallow, as if it were the newborn child Zeus. Some say that when Rhea 1 brought the stone to Cronos, he, believing the stone to be a child, bade her offer milk to the baby. Rhea 1 then pressed her breast, and the flowing milk created the stars that are known by the name of the Milky Way.

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

Belushi,

You should post a link to where you copied/pasted that from.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html


Belushi,

I had hoped we could have a reasonable discussion, are you committed to not having a discussion based on reason and argument?

I have never seen you do this yet.

You are anything but reasonable.

Anyone who has been on these forums for very long at all knows that your have an extreme agenda of not only proving that the Bible can be the only true word of God, but of also insisting that only YOU have the correct interpretation of it.

You even argue with other Christians that only YOUR interpretation of God's word is valid and that they have it all wrong!

In my humble opinion Spider, you are a perfect example of what can go wrong with an authoritarian religion that claims to have the word of God in a book.

You are a perfect example of what's wrong with authoritarian religions. They cause people to think that they speak on behalf of the authoritarian God. That's what makes them so dangerous and unhealthy to humanity as a whole. We really need to move beyond these extremely egotistical religions that pit man against man in a war of "I HAVE THE ONLY TRUE AND CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF GOD!!!!"

That's just not healthy and therefore it can't be "godly".

Thank you for your humble opinion. In my humble opinion, you are unreasonable and largely unthinking. This has worked for you up to recently, but I don't allow you to get away with gratuitous assertions and illogical arguments, which really gets under your skin.

You are also very confused by simple terms. Reasonable doesn't mean that I have to accept your arguments, but it does mean that I have to refute them or accept them. You have yet to provide an argument which I couldn't refute, so my reasonableness has yet to be tested by your posts.

It's strange that I've never posted anything like what you claim that I have. It's also strange that my opinions aren't welcome in a forum dedicated to discussion of religion.

Clearly you're in denial. But that's ok Spider, the people who have been reading these forums over the past year know better.



And this is the other thing you constantly do. You twist the words of others and claim they are saying things that they never said. Possibly because you sincerely misundstand them and conjure up imaginary attacks against yourself.

Never did I say that your opinions aren't welcome. All I said is that they are unreasonable. You're the one who seems to have a bit of paranoia there chap.

We are going to round 5!

A beautiful woman is holding up the sign with the number 5 on it. Around the ring men whistle as on one end Spider is getting his face cleaned up with the blood. On the other end is Abra trying to get his left eye open again.

Who shall win the heavyweight title of the year?

My beliefs are dangerous and unhealthy to humanity as a whole, but you welcome them into the forums?

Dissemble much?

Smiless,

Abra hasn't presented any arguments for his side. To imagine that I've been bloodied is without merit. If anything, I have sullied myself by responding to his gratuitous assertions, but he has yet to make a valid point. Now tell me, do you read Abra's posts in this thread and think that he has made a valid point? Please point one out to me.

Ok you win. The world would be better off without demented views of God. I confess.

The fight's over Smiless, you can ring the bell. The powers of evil have won again.

Maybe love and goodwill toward men will win another day.

ringing the bell! ringing the bell!

Halt! Stop!

Now both of you hug each other!

You are a child. Nothing but a child. What amazes me is that you choose to remain so. Why waste your mind and time playing childish games? It's also amazing that so many people are brain dead, so that they seem to actually believe your BS arguments, obvious lies and distortions and think that your making a stupid insult against me (like calling me evil), somehow results in a win for your position. Your beliefs are laughable, as this thread clearly shows. You haven't bothered to think out your positions, you just spout nonsense and trust that those who also hate Christianity won't look too closely at your posts. It's truly pathetic and disgusting.