spittledip
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2005
- 4,480
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
On what basis can you make that claim? In reality, I'm not talking about God, per se, but about omnipotence. Please pay closer attention.Originally posted by: spittledip
Again, you are simplifying God too much.
I'm not contesting that. I'm saying that it is inconsistent to claim that things happen in opposition to the will of a being whose will cannot be opposed.He is more than just "all-powerful." Just b/c you have the power to do something does not mean that you do it.
I'm not talking about free will. This has absolutely nothing to do with fre will. Please pay attention so that you do not introduce any further irrelevant diversions.Even people operate at this level. There are often things we would like to do that are within our power, but we do not do them b/c we are more than just bags of blood and guts and bones chasing after every stimulus. He could have created a planet of "yes-men," but apparently he wanted people who had the capacity to make their own minds up about him, just as you and I are demonstrating here. Maybe if you or I were all-powerful we would create a world whose inhabitants were all yes-men, but God is not you or I. He has other characteristics that guide His decisions. He has His own Free-will and his own reasons for doing what He does.
As I said above, I'm not necessarily talking about your God. If you don't believe that your God is omnipotent, then my argument doesn't apply to your God.What this has to do with the price of tea is that when you create a strawman God, it makes it much easier to poke holes in the beliefs of other people.
Any other attributes are totally irrlevant.Isn't that the purpose of the strawman? Also, you seem to have such a limited concept of what God is- you seem to think God is just an "it" with power. To understand concepts about God, or even to have a meaningful conversation about God, you have to let go of the notion that He is a simpleton powerhouse or whatever limiting ideas you have.
Blah blah blah.... I hope it makes you feel good to type things like this out, because it does absolutely nothing for me, and it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.This also brings up what Moon and other moon said to me. They sthink that religious belief is something you compartmentalize- it is only experiential and that there is no reasoning behind it. After thinking about it, I decided that was wrong. I do not put my rational self in a jar when I think about religious things, nor do I put away emotions when I think about intellectual things. I do not believe in living a fractured existence. God is not fractured either- He is perfectly whole and all that He is operates together, just like a psychologically healthy person should. As soon as you determine what God should or shouldn't do based upon one characteristic you are compartmentalizing Him.
Please pay attention.
That the Bible describes an inconsistent god-concept does not invalidate my argument. If the Bible said there were square circles, that wouldn't mean that square circles are a coherent idea.(edit: in reference to God doing other than His will when He has power to do otherwise)You can even take examples from the Bible when people intervened and asked God to do or not do something, and He heard them and did as they asked.
I notice that you like to take ideas out of context in order to invalidate what I have written, and coupling it with insults. Doing this only makes your own points look shaky as you are unable to support them without lying about what I have written.
Do note(first addressing the dishonest remarks):
-We are talking about omnipotence in relation to God. Why else would we talk about omnipotence, especially as the main topic of this ENTIRE thread is God??
-Very obviously free will is a major component when we are talking about God being all powerful and controlling every aspect of life. First it works as an example, as is clearly written in the paragraph that you so neatly dissected (take things in context). Second I explained that different persons do different things with their power depending on their other characteristics. I know you are not dumb, so I must assume that you are purposely avoiding the point. I took blame for lack of clear explanation before, but now I know that was not the case.
-The final paragraph is incredibly relevant. We are talking about if a God exists, whether or not he would be limited by His omnipotence to force everything to His will. The point was similar to a previously mentioned one. Just like people, a God would interact using His entire person, not just one facet of his person. Again, this is not a complex point and you are not dumb, so I am guessing you are being obtuse.
To address the more honest points:
- there is a huge difference between "will being opposed" and "choosing." Just b/c there may be a preference does not mean the preference will be chosen despite the power to opt for the preference.
-I am talking about an idea and the possibility of an idea, and you are trying to refute the idea. It does not matter if the idea has a subject or not.
-You mistake inconsistency with complexity. So when you change your mind, does that make you inconsistent?