Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Unified Imperial States]

Apparently you haven't heard of a lot of things before.

Are you saying you don't think Satanists are sincere? Of course there's true believers. Despite my obvious problems with them, you should know that not everyone in this world is a dishonest satirist devoted to making fun of others.

Calm down.
When I think of satanism, I think of the movement started by Anton LaVey.

And? I was speaking of the same organisation.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

In other words, everyone answers to someone.
Even the pope.

Assuming god exists, he probably answers to rococop Jesus or something more powerful than him that we don't know about.

In terms of honest debate (in other words, religious beliefs aside) we can't assume there is a higher power than God because God lies outside the confines of the Universe, of which our perceptions are bound to. Beyond that, omnipotence gives the capabilities of both self-creation as well as simply existing forever.

If god is so powerful, that must mean he is capable of anything right??

So does that mean he is capable of not existing?
Is he capable of creating a boulder so massive he can't lift it?


And if he exists outside what our perceptions are bound to, how do you have any clue or indication of him existing?

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Calm down.
When I think of satanism, I think of the movement started by Anton LaVey.

And? I was speaking of the same organisation.

Oh ok.
Well from what I can tell, LaVeyan Satanism is just a kind of philosophy or mock religion, like the Flying Spegetti Monster, but taken more seriously.

[Bunkeranlage]

So does that mean he is capable of not existing?
Is he capable of creating a boulder so massive he can't lift it?

Omnipotence does not encompass the ability to bring about that which is contradictory.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

So does that mean he is capable of not existing?
Is he capable of creating a boulder so massive he can't lift it?

Omnipotence does not encompass the ability to bring about that which is contradictory.

So god can't do something?
So he's not omnipotent?

And what you said sounds like a cop out.

[Unified Imperial States]

In terms of honest debate (in other words, religious beliefs aside) we can't assume there is a higher power than God because God lies outside the confines of the Universe, of which our perceptions are bound to. Beyond that, omnipotence gives the capabilities of both self-creation as well as simply existing forever.

If god is so powerful, that must mean he is capable of anything right??

So does that mean he is capable of not existing?
Is he capable of creating a boulder so massive he can't lift it?


And if he exists outside what our perceptions are bound to, how do you have any clue or indication of him existing?

Omnipotence would give him the ability to both exist and not exist at the same time if he so chose, yes. As for the boulder, both yes and no.

Perhaps a slight retraction is necessary. God would not be bound to being outside the universe, but our perceptions are still bound to it.

[Unified Imperial States]

So does that mean he is capable of not existing?
Is he capable of creating a boulder so massive he can't lift it?

Omnipotence does not encompass the ability to bring about that which is contradictory.

Omnipotence does encompass the ability to bring about what is contradictory. It is the quality of unlimited power.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

If god is so powerful, that must mean he is capable of anything right??

So does that mean he is capable of not existing?
Is he capable of creating a boulder so massive he can't lift it?


And if he exists outside what our perceptions are bound to, how do you have any clue or indication of him existing?

Omnipotence would give him the ability to both exist and not exist at the same time if he so chose, yes. As for the boulder, both yes and no.

Perhaps a slight retraction is necessary. God would not be bound to being outside the universe, but our perceptions are still bound to it.

Perhaps.
But if god can influence the world around us in fantastical, magical ways, then science can observe and test miracles?

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Omnipotence does not encompass the ability to bring about that which is contradictory.

Omnipotence does encompass the ability to bring about what is contradictory. It is the quality of unlimited power.

Thank you for admitting this.
But if god is contradictory, he makes no sense.

[Unified Imperial States]

And? I was speaking of the same organisation.

Oh ok.
Well from what I can tell, LaVeyan Satanism is just a kind of philosophy or mock religion, like the Flying Spegetti Monster, but taken more seriously.

Actually, I retract my prior statements in their entirety regarding the philosophy. It isn't a mock religion though, as the word religion can mean so very many things, atheistic cults included.

[Bunkeranlage]

Omnipotence does not encompass the ability to bring about that which is contradictory.

So god can't do something?
So he's not omnipotent?

And what you said sounds like a cop out.

For one, these "omnipotence paradoxes" are not paradoxes at all, but (to reuse your phrase), a "cop out".

For example, "Can God create a married bachelor? He cannot. Therefore, he is not omnipotent". That is not a paradox, but a categorical issue. For one, all bachelors are unmarried, so a married bachelor is something (or someone ) that just simply does not exist. To claim that God is not omnipotent as he cannot create a married bachelor is, hence, not only not an argument, but also not an issue at all.

In fact, if you look in the Bible, it even lists things God cannot do (i.e. God cannot look upon sin). Claiming that Christians claim total omnipotence for God would, hence, be something of a straw man.

What God is, however, is omnipotent within his nature.

[Unified Imperial States]

Omnipotence does encompass the ability to bring about what is contradictory. It is the quality of unlimited power.

Thank you for admitting this.
But if god is contradictory, he makes no sense.

Such is the power of omnipotence. The existence of the universe and the fact that it even has laws that define it's physical properties doesn't make sense either, to which numerous scientists have admitted. The Universe simply is, and to the believer, God is as well.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Oh ok.
Well from what I can tell, LaVeyan Satanism is just a kind of philosophy or mock religion, like the Flying Spegetti Monster, but taken more seriously.

Actually, I retract my prior statements in their entirety regarding the philosophy. It isn't a mock religion though, as the word religion can mean so very many things, atheistic cults included.

Yeah, and cult films.
Ever heard of the Church of the Latter Day Dude?
It's a cult based off of the Big Lebowski movie.

[Bunkeranlage]

Thank you for admitting this.
But if god is contradictory, he makes no sense.

Such is the power of omnipotence. The existence of the universe and the fact that it even has laws that define it's physical properties doesn't make sense either, to which numerous scientists have admitted. The Universe simply is, and to the believer, God is as well.

But can God take away his own omnipotence permanently?

[The Creepoc Infinite]

So god can't do something?
So he's not omnipotent?

And what you said sounds like a cop out.

For one, these "omnipotence paradoxes" are not paradoxes at all, but (to reuse your phrase), a "cop out".

For example, "Can God create a married bachelor? He cannot. Therefore, he is not omnipotent". That is not a paradox, but a categorical issue. For one, all bachelors are unmarried, so a married bachelor is something (or someone ) that just simply does not exist. To claim that God is not omnipotent as he cannot create a married bachelor is, hence, not only not an argument, but also not an issue at all.

In fact, if you look in the Bible, it even lists things God cannot do (i.e. God cannot look upon sin). Claiming that Christians claim total omnipotence for God would, hence, be something of a straw man.

What God is, however, is omnipotent within his nature.

And what constitutes as "his nature"

Also, I think it would be a tramway to say ALL CHRISTIANS think god is omnipotent.
They clearly don't all think that, but tons of them do. Especially where I live.
So these paradoxes are not necessarily straw man, but merely something that refutes the idea that god is omnipotent.

[Bunkeranlage]

And what constitutes as "his nature"

That tends to differ depending on who you ask.

[Unified Imperial States]

In fact, if you look in the Bible, it even lists things God cannot do (i.e. God cannot look upon sin).

Interesting, now that's something I haven't heard of. Not surprising, of course. There seems to be a lot of that.

[Unified Imperial States]

Such is the power of omnipotence. The existence of the universe and the fact that it even has laws that define it's physical properties doesn't make sense either, to which numerous scientists have admitted. The Universe simply is, and to the believer, God is as well.

But can God take away his own omnipotence permanently?

In terms of what the word permanent means to us, I suppose not. But in the greater scheme of things, is permanence simply a human idea on it's own?

[The Creepoc Infinite]

And what constitutes as "his nature"

That tends to differ depending on who you ask.

That being said, how do you know your right about what you believe his nature to be?
Because that is where a lot of problems come from.

If you wartch the Star Trek next generation episode "who watches the watchers?" A primitive alien race mistakes Picard to be a god.
And they start speculating about what he wants from them and making assumptions about his nature.

That's why it's hard to really trust a Christian or the bible to actually be right about god.

[Bunkeranlage]

In fact, if you look in the Bible, it even lists things God cannot do (i.e. God cannot look upon sin).

Interesting, now that's something I haven't heard of. Not surprising, of course. There seems to be a lot of that.

I'm sorry, I wish to redact.

Upon further examination, I realised that Habakkuk isn't referring to literally looking at sin, but is presenting an irony of God approving of evil.

My bad.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

But can God take away his own omnipotence permanently?

In terms of what the word permanent means to us, I suppose not. But in the greater scheme of things, is permanence simply a human idea on it's own?

To be honest all words are simply sequences of sounds meant to be assigned to an idea or object as to categorize it and make disseminating information more possible between individuals.

Example:
Meaning is a word.
The word has many meanings people give it.

[Bunkeranlage]

That tends to differ depending on who you ask.

That being said, how do you know your right about what you believe his nature to be?
Because that is where a lot of problems come from.

...

That's why it's hard to really trust a Christian or the bible to actually be right about god.

I'm not sure about others, but I don't go out of the way to actively claim that I'm right while everybody is wrong.

To add on, if we are to follow the logic that you have presented, then a huge portion of subjective interpretations cannot be taken as true. For example, how do you know that I am right when I say that Beethoven's 5th Symphony represents his willingness to overcome his disabilities and illnesses?

Normally, we would have people claiming "Oh, it represents this", "Oh, it represents that". However, we wouldn't have any way to find out what Beethoven really intended for the Symphony to symbolise, unless one were to speak to him. Thus, we wouldn't have any way to know for sure what he really intended. What we do know comes from various writings he left behind.

The fact that many people have conflicting opinions on the qualities and symbolisms of Beethoven's 5th doesn't create a negation of said opinions.

[Crossikination]

In terms of honest debate (in other words, religious beliefs aside) we can't assume there is a higher power than God because God lies outside the confines of the Universe, of which our perceptions are bound to. Beyond that, omnipotence gives the capabilities of both self-creation as well as simply existing forever.

If god is so powerful, that must mean he is capable of anything right??
So does that mean he is capable of not existing?

Is he capable of creating a boulder so massive he can't lift it?


And if he exists outside what our perceptions are bound to, how do you have any clue or indication of him existing?

Do you honestly think that you can comprehend the power of God that created the universe, the universe that you don't fully understand?

[The Creepoc Infinite]

That being said, how do you know your right about what you believe his nature to be?
Because that is where a lot of problems come from.

...

That's why it's hard to really trust a Christian or the bible to actually be right about god.

I'm not sure about others, but I don't go out of the way to actively claim that I'm right while everybody is wrong.

To add on, if we are to follow the logic that you have presented, then a huge portion of subjective interpretations cannot be taken as true. For example, how do you know that I am right when I say that Beethoven's 5th Symphony represents his willingness to overcome his disabilities and illnesses?

Normally, we would have people claiming "Oh, it represents this", "Oh, it represents that". However, we wouldn't have any way to find out what Beethoven really intended for the Symphony to symbolise, unless one were to speak to him. Thus, we wouldn't have any way to know for sure what he really intended. What we do know comes from various writings he left behind.

The fact that many people have conflicting opinions on the qualities and symbolisms of Beethoven's 5th doesn't create a negation of said opinions.

No of course not.
But the difference between beethoven's 5th and god is one has evidence that it exists, while the other doesn't.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

I'm not sure about others, but I don't go out of the way to actively claim that I'm right while everybody is wrong.

To add on, if we are to follow the logic that you have presented, then a huge portion of subjective interpretations cannot be taken as true. For example, how do you know that I am right when I say that Beethoven's 5th Symphony represents his willingness to overcome his disabilities and illnesses?

Normally, we would have people claiming "Oh, it represents this", "Oh, it represents that". However, we wouldn't have any way to find out what Beethoven really intended for the Symphony to symbolise, unless one were to speak to him. Thus, we wouldn't have any way to know for sure what he really intended. What we do know comes from various writings he left behind.

The fact that many people have conflicting opinions on the qualities and symbolisms of Beethoven's 5th doesn't create a negation of said opinions.

No of course not.
But the difference between beethoven's 5th and god is one has evidence that it exists, while the other doesn't.

The opinions aren't inherently negated. They are just not something we could trust.
The opinions are of the natur something that has no evidence to support that it even exists in the first place.