No, that defines something you don't explain with something else you don't explain. You also never demonstrate that any of the concepts you claim exist actually do. All you do is play a game of bullshit semantics
>>564905 >mfw death, selfhood and by extension otherness are emanations of god
it is absurd to ask "can god do x" because 1:god is and is beyond "x" 2:god would not be god if he was limited in any way. so in the context of your question, suffice it to say, god is death, god is killing, god is self, as well: god is the state of deadness and is simuletaneously beyond these things. God contains all of these things.
>>564967 >omnipotence means whatever I want it to mean
Omnipotence means all powerful, in theory one who could demonstrate themselves being destroyed is not a form of power.
You're defining power and omnipotence differently. >>564905 Are you?
So many logical contradictions... For instance just take Immanuel Kant, all the theist must do is posit that the one making the objection is not themselves omnipotent thus they can not truly call it a contradiction in itself because they are ignorant of the magnitude of such a proposition, this however does not affect the proposition being true or false.
tl"dr If you think that people haven't thought of what you thought of and then solved it easily, you're dumb.
>>565002 It explains everything actually. Might I point you towards Francis Schaeffer's "how should we then live?" series.
>>565037 Ignorance isn't a legitimate objection. >>565039 >How he can't stand up to basic logic. It was logical that the Sun revolves around the Earth, it became heretical to say otherwise, then it became heretical to say so.
Throughout time the circle of what we "know" has been defined and redefined countless times, you're merely ignorant of your progenitors, its not a mark against you, though if you do nothing about it, then it is a mark against you.
In essence, you simply don't understand. I don't know if anyone truly will in this life, however this is not a commentary the truth of such concepts and propositions.
Besides one break rationale at any moment and apply encompassing statements to themselves or subjective statements to themselves. It makes you look like you don't understand basic ideas, such is the way of the Pyrrhonist.
>>565100 No... all it says is the different premises that God may exist
>Argument for cause well ok, but it doesn't prove it was made by god...? >Morality This argument literally goes nowhere. Might as well have been "Let's just make God so we get people to do good morals" Hammurabi's code with a big scary god instead. >Intelligent design Nigger please.
No, it actually doesn't. Your poor definition of the entity that apparently is behind every mechanism in the universe doesn't allow me to answer a single how-question about the universe. It's about as good an explanation for the universe as shape shifting fairies are
>The Bible clearly speaks of demons or evil spirits, but what are they? Are demons fallen angels?
>Perhaps the clearest answer can be found in Revelation 12:9: "And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." This verse states Satan is the devil and the serpent from Genesis 3. He was thrown down to earth with his "angels." The evil spirits or demons described in the Bible appear to be angels who joined Satan in his rebellion against God.
>Another helpful passage is found in Matthew 25:41. Jesus teaches, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Those with the devil are called angels, the same beings called demons or evil spirits in other passages.
>Therefore, we can conclude demons are fallen angels.
>>565161 Then back up your claims!! Don't just say evolution doesn't exist, cite it! don't use some site that unironically cites the bible which is only a claim. I demand proof.
There is no reason TO believe in god. There has been absolutely nothing since the "bible" that has made god apparent. You people are just scared of the dark. Having to grasp at "Well the big bang theory is a hoax because we can't explain it all yet therefore God" as a last resort is pathetic.
Why are there so many world religions? Why do they all fight among one another? Why does no one have the definitive answer? Why do polytheistic religions like Hindu not believe in a Abrahamic god if he's the correct one? Why is it the people of Judah that were chosen? Why did we not know about all the people of the earth? Why did God create math and the laws of physics if only to disprove himself? Why do christians go to "Well god is everything so logic arguments don't work BTFO atheists" when you can't prove he's everything? That claim is astoundingly easy to make yet not back up. I could go on and on.
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free-will and at the same time withhold free-will from it," you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can". It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
>"lol can God create a stone so big he can't lift it? xDDD" is a shitty Reddit meme.
Depends on how omnipotence is understood. For Classical conceptions of God (Classical Theism), omnipotence is not a readily available power to do anything (The Theistic Personalist view) but rather being the constant source of reality and its order by God's nature. Thus God is all-powerful (omnipotence) despite not being all-powerful in the sense of having all the powers of all degrees of existing.
For example: God is non-competitive with nature. To apostolic faiths and classical Christianity generally change in nature (and things we'd call miracles) is more akin to changing the notes on an instrument to change the sound, rather than changing the sound waves manually. Thus "God lifting a stone" in a human sense is incompatible and incoherent with the situation. God could empower a person (such as the human form of Jesus) to lift the stone and God is the one that allows the stone to be moved and exist as it is, ultimately, but it makes no sense to talk about God like that.
Further, God wills things according to his nature. We don't know anything beyond that, so to ask if God can will two different contradictory states of affair works against the notion of God acting according to his eternal, unchanging will. To frame the question would also assume God changes, which, by his known attributes, we know that is not the case.
I would really love to know that there is indeed a God, and that this life is not going to end in the same nothingness that was before our births, yet the more we know the more it seems that there isn’t really any design in the Universe, and that things are actually devoid of any purpose or meaning.
We already know that our planet is not the center of anything, that our species is nothing especial and that we were not created in the likeness of a divine being. All the religious texts of every civilization have been disproven, and every miracle, once it is carefully analyzed, ends up being disproven.
Yet when we really use logic, we end up with two possible scenarios that are kind of incomprehensible:
1-Something that is eternal and have always existed. The initial cause of existence, be it God or some form of Universe that gave birth to our Universe, or any initial substance etc.: a thing or being that is eternal, that had not a beginning.
2-Something (either our Universe or the palce fro were our Universe emerged or the place before that, etc., the original surge of existence) came into existence out of nothing: the absolute emptiness suddenly had time, space and matter.
There is not apparently any option, either 1-something was eternal and is the origin of existence or 2-something came from nothing. The problem is: do we really have the capacity to understand infinity, or can we really comprehend the mechanism of something coming from nothing?
For all we know our brains are probably limited, so there are things in existence we are never going to understand, and actually not even knowing they exist. For example: some colors are out of our visible spectrum, and although they exist our eyes and our brains simply cant perceive them. And another thing: we might try to teach physics and chemistry to dogs, but their brains simply can’t understand that: they have organic limitations that will never be conquered, and so many aspects of reality are forever out of their reach.
So I guess that is extremely probable that our brains are organically incapable of understanding certain aspects of existence (or perceiving certain aspects of it), and maybe it is here that our difficulties with the concepts of infinity and existence-out-of-emptiness lie.
You are taking the easy way out, probably out of fear or egocentrism. If humans were always satisfied with the simple answers, like you, we would still probably be living in caves and worshiping the gods of thunder and fire.
>>565342 Well said. I especially like your color example. However, if there is, as you say, a thing that is eternal, why does it exist? If we see no proof of it, etc etc etc, why does it need to exist? We aren't interacting with it. We don't need it. Couldn't it just be construed as a comfort?
I'm fine with the premise that our brains are limited, just as a dog or cat's. That's a comforting fact, really.
I think he means that yeah, God has ultimate power, so - in theory - he could kill himself.
BUT if you have ultimate power you wouldn't kill yourself, in fact you'd do just what God does: you'd use that ultimate power for... well, for anything, really - from creating universes to performing small miracles.
And, of course, you'd observe your little zoo(s).
You only want to kill yourself if you have no (or little) power.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.