Is god real?

[Dyakovo]

Not true! The self-righteous Christians may say that is what the Bible says, but in fact, the Bible does not say all non-Christians go to hell. That myth came about when it was an excuse used by the Spanish Inquisition to justify their torture of people.
In the Bible, Jesus himself says that you can avoid hell by doing good unto others. You don't have to believe in him. Believing in Jesus is a definite way to stay out of hell, but not the only way.

Commandment one, to my knowledge, states that you must have no god before... Well, God. Therefore, every single non-Christian is breaking the first and, arguably, most important rule of Christianity. Atheists as well. Agnostics might have a shot, if God isn't pissy at the moment. Unlikely, but a shot.

How do atheists have another god before Yahweh?

[Dyakovo]

I suppose he could. But then he could just destroy it.

If he could, then wouldn't there exist a mountain he couldn't lift, and thus lifting that mountain would be something he couldn't do? Wouldn't that then make him not omnipotent?

Yup. Omnipotence is an impossibility.

[Big Jim P]

If he could, then wouldn't there exist a mountain he couldn't lift, and thus lifting that mountain would be something he couldn't do? Wouldn't that then make him not omnipotent?

Yup. Omnipotence is an impossibility.

Hit my wife with that one.

[Farnhamia]

Yup. Omnipotence is an impossibility.

Hit my wife with that one.

Wives are certainly omnipotent. We're just talking about that Middle Eastern hill god, Yahweh.

[The Alma Mater]

Commandment one, to my knowledge, states that you must have no god before... Well, God. Therefore, every single non-Christian is breaking the first and, arguably, most important rule of Christianity. Atheists as well. Agnostics might have a shot, if God isn't pissy at the moment. Unlikely, but a shot.

How do atheists have another god before Yahweh?

One can interpret "not having another God' as "do not derive your morals from anything except my teachings".

Of course, that makes about 99,9% of all Christians 1st commandment breakers as well.

[Farnhamia]

How do atheists have another god before Yahweh?

One can interpret "not having another God' as "do not derive your morals from anything except my teachings".

Of course, that makes about 99,9% of all Christians 1st commandment breakers as well.

Or one can take it as I suspect it was meant originally, "Yes, there are other gods but did they lead you out of Egypt? Did they? And did they promise you all of Canaan, like I did, to have your way with? So don't go cheating on me or you'll get it."

Now, if it read, "There are no other gods but God," that would be different.

[Unhealthy2]

Of course, that makes about 99,9% of all Christians 1st commandment breakers as well.

No big deal really, considering that 100% of Christians ignore some parts of the bible anyway.

[Big Jim P]

Hit my wife with that one.

Wives are certainly omnipotent. We're just talking about that Middle Eastern hill god, Yahweh.

Spoken truth. Someone write this down. God has spoken.

[Ceannairceach]

Commandment one, to my knowledge, states that you must have no god before... Well, God. Therefore, every single non-Christian is breaking the first and, arguably, most important rule of Christianity. Atheists as well. Agnostics might have a shot, if God isn't pissy at the moment. Unlikely, but a shot.

How do atheists have another god before Yahweh?

From what I've heard from some minority Christian group or another, our denial of god and "worship" of science and scientists puts our "science religion" before god. Or some shite like that.

The idea is that since atheists don't have a god, we can't have Yahweh first.

[Villerar]

What does "literally doing" something that can't logically be done mean?

It's not logically impossible to be able to create something that you yourself cannot lift. We do it all the time. It's called building construction. The point of the stone paradox is that no being can literally be able to do anything logically possible. It is logically possible to be able to create something you cannot lift. It is also logically possible, though probably not physically possible, to be able to lift anything. However, it is not possible to be able to lift anything AND be able to create something that you cannot lift. Hence, the ability to do anything logically possible is not itself, logically possible.

Because combining these two abilities creates an logical impossibility. Two possible abilities do not have to be possible when combined, we can draw square and we can draw circles but we cannot draw square circles. It is simply postulating tosh. Even then, I'd call not being able to lift something impotence, not part of omnipotence. One can devise an endless list of such non-abilities that "refute" omnipotence and they all end up creating logical incongruencies.

It's amazing how some NAs clutch to postmodern baloney to justify their scientistic atheism.

[Unhealthy2]

Because combining these two abilities creates an logical impossibility. Two possible abilities do not have to be possible when combined, we can draw square and we can draw circles but we cannot draw square circles. It is simply postulating tosh. Even then, I'd call not being able to lift something impotence, not part of omnipotence. One can devise an endless list of such non-abilities that "refute" omnipotence and they all end up creating logical incongruencies.

It's amazing how some NAs clutch to postmodern baloney to justify their scientistic atheism.

Drawing a square circle is not the combination of drawing a square and drawing a circle. It is logically possible to be able to draw a square. It is logically possible to be able to draw a circle. It is also logically possible to be able to draw a square AND be able to draw a circle. Nothing about this is postmodern.

Not being able to lift something IS impotence, but the ability to create something with a given set of properties is positive ability. Sometimes the ability to do one thing implies the inability to do something else. Hence, the ability to do anything logically possible is paradoxical.

Oh, and good job on pointing out the fact that these things create logical incongruities. That was kind of the point.

Oh, and finally, nothing about my argument was an attempt to refute the existence of god. It was simply an attempt to show that certain ideas like omnipotence, at least by its naive definition, are nonsensical. A god does not have to have omnipotence.

[The Truth and Light]

Uh oh, someone has the same flag as me. Please everyone, don't get us confused.

[Coccygia]

Actually both of you are figments of my imagination, like everybody else. Get real.

How does one achieve reality, oh mighty Imaginer ?

I don't think you do. In fact, if I stop thinking about you, you'll vanish. But don't worry, it's not like you were real anyway.

[Villerar]

Because combining these two abilities creates an logical impossibility. Two possible abilities do not have to be possible when combined, we can draw square and we can draw circles but we cannot draw square circles. It is simply postulating tosh. Even then, I'd call not being able to lift something impotence, not part of omnipotence. One can devise an endless list of such non-abilities that "refute" omnipotence and they all end up creating logical incongruencies.

It's amazing how some NAs clutch to postmodern baloney to justify their scientistic atheism.

Drawing a square circle is not the combination of drawing a square and drawing a circle. It is logically possible to be able to draw a square. It is logically possible to be able to draw a circle. It is also logically possible to be able to draw a square AND be able to draw a circle. Nothing about this is postmodern.

Not being able to lift something IS impotence, but the ability to create something with a given set of properties is positive ability. Sometimes the ability to do one thing implies the inability to do something else. Hence, the ability to do anything logically possible is paradoxical.

Oh, and good job on pointing out the fact that these things create logical incongruities. That was kind of the point.

Oh, and finally, nothing about my argument was an attempt to refute the existence of god. It was simply an attempt to show that certain ideas like omnipotence, at least by its naive definition, are nonsensical. A god does not have to have omnipotence.

Very well, if we agree that these things are logically incongruent then we are not far from agreeing on the fact that it is fairly unreasonable to demand the possibility of something logically incongruent.

It's also commendable that you point another issue that seems to be the crux of the problem, namely the naïve definition of omnipotence, which was the thing I objected to. Personally I am inclined to the definition of omnipotence of God being the source of all natural powers, being able to create as He sees fit and to transform His creation. Since I believe God is immutable and morally perfect, there are some other things that God cannot do but that we can, but these are not relevant to the definition of omnipotence. The naïve definition of omnipotence is only used in popular rhetoric, so acting as if it is the official theist position and that theism becomes illogical upon its refutation would not be completely intellectually honest.

To end with a more general statement:
Oh, yeah, as I hope you have noticed, I'm not the same person as The Truth and Light.

[The Alma Mater]

How does one achieve reality, oh mighty Imaginer ?

I don't think you do. In fact, if I stop thinking about you, you'll vanish. But don't worry, it's not like you were real anyway.

But you just ordered me to get real Aaaaargh, a a paradox !

[The Truth and Light]

Is God real?


Only time will tell.

[Coccygia]

I don't think you do. In fact, if I stop thinking about you, you'll vanish. But don't worry, it's not like you were real anyway.

But you just ordered me to get real Aaaaargh, a a paradox !

It was just a figure of speech, Alma! Calm down.

[The Southron Nation]

Commandment one, to my knowledge, states that you must have no god before... Well, God. Therefore, every single non-Christian is breaking the first and, arguably, most important rule of Christianity. Atheists as well. Agnostics might have a shot, if God isn't pissy at the moment. Unlikely, but a shot.

How do atheists have another god before Yahweh?

Another rebuttal would be to remind the self-righteous christian about the thief and judas. Judas walked with Christ for 3 years and suffers in hell. The Thief, a saint in my Church - I'm Greek Orthodox - knew him for but a moment and went to paradise. The point is that no one knows where they are going b/c all are sinners. We are saved daily by Gods grace whether we believe or not. No Christian of any sound mind could ever make the case that non-believers are going to hell and be honest about it. Judas was a believer, wasn't he? But he betrayed Christ and despaired, they'll say. Doesn't matter, dude believed. If that, plus grace which is ever forthcoming, is all you need then why did he go to hell?

The fact is that one cannot know where one will go. When St. Paul lay on his death bed he lamented that he did not have more time to repent. He still viewed himself as the chief of all sinners, and he was a Bishop in the Orthodox Church. Even after decades of walking in Christ, Paul had no idea whether he'd go to heaven or hell. No one can know. It is willfully ignorant to suggest otherwise.

The atheist might still go. God exists outside of time. Therefore, if all stand before Him for judgement, then the atheist might, 10,000 years from now, repent. Doesn't matter how long it takes. God always exists. Therefore He'll be there for all eternity waiting on creation to be redeemed in Him. All creation has to be redeemed. Christ points and leads the way. All the rocks, the trees, the stars, and any other life out there we might encounter must be redeemed voluntarily. Even the non-believers.

All dogs go to heaven.

[Dyakovo]

How do atheists have another god before Yahweh?

From what I've heard from some minority Christian group or another, our denial of god and "worship" of science and scientists puts our "science religion" before god. Or some shite like that.

The idea is that since atheists don't have a god, we can't have Yahweh first.

True... But that doesn't change the fact that atheists don't have any other god before him, so he's not 2^nd either...

[Dyakovo]

The point is that no one knows where they are going b/c all are sinners.

I'm not. My lack of a belief system does not include the concept of sin.

[The Truth and Light]

The point is that no one knows where they are going b/c all are sinners.

I'm not. My lack of a belief system does not include the concept of sin.

Nice. Mine does.

Does that make me automatically right? No.

Let's not be cocky.

[The Truth and Light]

Who can say God is real? No man can; only time will tell.

[Farnhamia]

I'm not. My lack of a belief system does not include the concept of sin.

Nice. Mine does.

Does that make me automatically right? No.

Let's not be cocky.

If there's one thing the Abrahamic religions are about, it's being cocky.

"Thou shalt have no god before me"?
"No one comes to the Father save through me"?
"There is no God but Allah"?

Yeah ... cocky.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not. My lack of a belief system does not include the concept of sin.

Nice. Mine does.

Does that make me automatically right? No.

Let's not be cocky.

I think the point was that the assumption 'we are all sinners' is only an assumption worth making if you already agree with the other person's theology.

[French Union]

It seems unlikely but you never know.