The BIG rock question[for the Evil Editor]
John Kelley
raven1
>http://www.tektonics.org/rockon.htm
Oh, you must mean the old riddle; "if Lemmy and God had a wrestling
match, who would win? Trick Question! Lemmy *is* God!"
John Hattan
>http://www.tektonics.org/rockon.htm
Favorite part. . .
-An all-powerful being can lift anything.
-The posed question is about object A.
-Object A is a rock that an all-powerful being cannot lift.
-Therefore, object A is a rock that cannot be lifted by a being
that can lift anything.
The definition of object A is nonsensical; it is self-contradicting.
Such a rock does not exist. That's not enough: such a rock couldn't
exist, even in theory.
Of course, the same logic could be applied to the god. . .
-An all-powerful being can create anything.
-The posed question is about being B.
-Being B is a being that cannot create something.
-Therefore, being B is a being that can create anything but
cannot create something.
The definition of being B is nonsensical; it is self-contradicting.
Such a being does not exist. That's not enough: such a being
couldn't exist, even in theory.
So now we've got a self-contradicting being performing a nonsensical act
on a self-contradicting object. I'm just glad I've got an iron chariot
so that I can keep such a being at bay :)
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
John Hattan
Dunno why Christians are so wrapped up with omnipotent gods anyway.
Captain Kirk killed a half-dozen gods, so omnipotence is really quite
overrated.
Matt Silberstein
<jo...@thecodezone.com>:
Wow, so we have shown that God is not "all-powerful". Powerful
enough to create the Universe as a whim, maybe. But not
all-powerful. BFD.
Editor of EvilBible.com
"John Kelley" <jke...@zoomnet.net> wrote in message
news:ce9e95d1.03110...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.tektonics.org/rockon.htm
It appears as this web page is saying that God can only do logical things.
For example he can't make square circles. In other words, God can not do
illogical things.
An omnipotent God should be able to create another omnipotent God. If this
God wanted to kill the first God, and the first God didn't want to die, then
either the first God gets killed and is therefore not omnipotent, or he
lives and the second God is not omnipotent. If the second God is not
omnipotent than the first God is not omnipotent because he can't create an
omnipotent God. Therefore an omnipotent God is not logically possible.
quibbler
jke...@zoomnet.net says...
> http://www.tektonics.org/rockon.htm
>
Oh, gee you found a tired old apologetic. The theist apology
intentionally misses the point. A self contradictory definition is
*not* being made. The question is whether god can do X, where X is for
god to do something that even he doesn't have the power to undo. It is
clear from the definition of omnipotence that such a being would have
the power to take away his own power, if that is the only way to make
such a rock. Thus, the question itself is not logically inconsistent.
So is there any other way that an omnipotent being could do something
that he was incapable of undoing? That's where the traditional liars
paradox arises. If god can do something that he is incapable of
undoing without limiting his own power in the first place then there is
an example of something that he cannot do (I.e. the thing he can make
undoable). If god "can't make anything which he himself lacks the
ability to undo" then we are saying that nothing is impossible for god.
But lots of things are impossible for god. But logically contradictory
things are impossible for anyone, including god. To say that god can
only do those things which are actually possible to do is no different
than what anyone else is capable of doing. We can all only do those
things which are possible for us to do.
So at the very least, if god is only limited to what is logically
possible, we must ask questions like, "Is it logically possible for a
dead person to resurrect himself"? If by this we mean that the person
ceased to be then there would be no person to perform the resurrection.
If instead we mean that the "spirit" of jebus chilled in heaven for a
couple days and then returned back to it's body then we have to somehow
establish the logical value of a spirit being able to reanimate a body.
It's not clear what kind of "logic" would operate in such a case and
therefore not clear if a god can really do it or not.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Martin Thomas
<quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <ce9e95d1.03110...@posting.google.com>,
>jke...@zoomnet.net says...
>> http://www.tektonics.org/rockon.htm
>>
>Oh, gee you found a tired old apologetic. The theist apology
>intentionally misses the point. A self contradictory definition is
>*not* being made. The question is whether god can do X, where X is for
>god to do something that even he doesn't have the power to undo. It is
>clear from the definition of omnipotence that such a being would have
>the power to take away his own power, if that is the only way to make
>such a rock. Thus, the question itself is not logically inconsistent.
But how many theists actually accept that definition of
omnipotence? I have posed the question several times on
alt.atheism and no one, theist or atheist has been able to
provide any evidence of such people existing.
I think the whole thing is a straw man argument, as crazy as when
theists insist on using their own definitions for words like
'atheist' or 'agnostic'.
Of course, there are a very few theists who claim that God can
defy logic - but they seem to be very few of them. The ones I
have come across obviously have no idea what logic is.
>So is there any other way that an omnipotent being could do something
>that he was incapable of undoing? That's where the traditional liars
>paradox arises. If god can do something that he is incapable of
>undoing without limiting his own power in the first place then there is
>an example of something that he cannot do (I.e. the thing he can make
>undoable). If god "can't make anything which he himself lacks the
>ability to undo" then we are saying that nothing is impossible for god.
>But lots of things are impossible for god. But logically contradictory
>things are impossible for anyone, including god. To say that god can
>only do those things which are actually possible to do is no different
>than what anyone else is capable of doing. We can all only do those
>things which are possible for us to do.
>
>So at the very least, if god is only limited to what is logically
>possible, we must ask questions like, "Is it logically possible for a
>dead person to resurrect himself"? If by this we mean that the person
>ceased to be then there would be no person to perform the resurrection.
>If instead we mean that the "spirit" of jebus chilled in heaven for a
>couple days and then returned back to it's body then we have to somehow
>establish the logical value of a spirit being able to reanimate a body.
>It's not clear what kind of "logic" would operate in such a case and
>therefore not clear if a god can really do it or not.
Or maybe the body just appeared to be dead? There are occasional
headlines in the tabloids about people who 'died' and then came
back to life. That generally means that the heart temporarily
stopped - and maybe the usual electrical activity of the brain
stopped as well. In other words, they were not really dead, they
just appeared to be. Edgar Allen Poe wrote a marvelous article
about people who had been buried alive, because they appeared to
be dead. Hopefully, with the rise of modern medicine, that
happens less often now!
It is possible that within the next few centuries it may be
possible to store enough information about the state of the brain
to reconstruct the personality in a computer - and even copy it
into a new body. I see no logical contradiction in that - I am
just exceedingly skeptical that anything like that happened 2000
years ago.
-
Martin Thomas
mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
John Kelley
Since that other god would have unlimited power,
it would take more than unlimited power to kill him.
Scott
"quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a101545f...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> In article <ce9e95d1.03110...@posting.google.com>,
> jke...@zoomnet.net says...
> > http://www.tektonics.org/rockon.htm
> >
> Oh, gee you found a tired old apologetic. The theist apology
> intentionally misses the point. A self contradictory definition is
> *not* being made. The question is whether god can do X, where X is for
> god to do something that even he doesn't have the power to undo. It is
> clear from the definition of omnipotence that such a being would have
> the power to take away his own power, if that is the only way to make
> such a rock. Thus, the question itself is not logically inconsistent.
http://answers.org/apologetics/omnipotence.html
John Hattan
Uh oh. That's blasphemy there. You might wanna borrow my iron chariot :)
Matt Silberstein
1) It is blasphemy for some theists, not for others.
2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
dishonest.
stoney
<matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom>, Message ID:
<mtmcqv8t8k4vb361t...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Sorry, but no. If something can't handle primitive chariots on a level
plain regardless of the material they're built from, there''s no reason
to look at something much more difficult.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
quibbler
sc...@nospam.net says...
Don't quote me 20 pages of pat answers, you stupid son of a bitch. I
know how theists try to redefine omnipotence. I've read tons of
apologetics by theists on subjects like this in particular, including
your long boring list of straw men. If you are not smart enough to
state the argument yourself and specifically address the issues I raise
then I won't waste any more time on you.
Matt Silberstein
<sto...@the.net>:
What did the argument above have to do with primitive chariots?
Editor of EvilBible.com
"Matt Silberstein" <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:083eqvkuc63ataddk...@4ax.com...
There's a passage in the Bible which says that God could not defeat an army
because they had iron chariots.
Editor of EvilBible.com
"John Kelley" <jke...@zoomnet.net> wrote in message
news:ce9e95d1.03110...@posting.google.com...
> "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote in message
news:<bo5mca$2df$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > "John Kelley" <jke...@zoomnet.net> wrote in message
> > news:ce9e95d1.03110...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > http://www.tektonics.org/rockon.htm
> >
> > It appears as this web page is saying that God can only do logical
things.
> > For example he can't make square circles. In other words, God can not
do
> > illogical things.
> >
> > An omnipotent God should be able to create another omnipotent God. If
this
> > God wanted to kill the first God, and the first God didn't want to die,
then
> > either the first God gets killed and is therefore not omnipotent, or he
> > lives and the second God is not omnipotent. If the second God is not
> > omnipotent than the first God is not omnipotent because he can't create
an
> > omnipotent God. Therefore an omnipotent God is not logically possible.
>
> Since that other god would have unlimited power,
> it would take more than unlimited power to kill him.
Explain this more clearly. I am confused about which Gods you are talking
about. Are you saying that the second God is omnipotent but still can't
kill the first God? That contradicts the very definition of omnipotence.
John Kelley
> In article <zTypb.661$HT3.41...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> sc...@nospam.net says...
> >
> > "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1a101545f...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > In article <ce9e95d1.03110...@posting.google.com>,
> > > jke...@zoomnet.net says...
> > > > http://www.tektonics.org/rockon.htm
> > > >
> > > Oh, gee you found a tired old apologetic. The theist apology
> > > intentionally misses the point. A self contradictory definition is
> > > *not* being made. The question is whether god can do X, where X is for
> > > god to do something that even he doesn't have the power to undo. It is
> > > clear from the definition of omnipotence that such a being would have
> > > the power to take away his own power, if that is the only way to make
> > > such a rock. Thus, the question itself is not logically inconsistent.
> >
> > http://answers.org/apologetics/omnipotence.html
>
>
> Don't quote me 20 pages of pat answers, you stupid son of a bitch.
The use of profanity signals the non-use of reason.
>I know how theists try to redefine omnipotence.
Omnipotence means having unlimited power,but there things
which even unlimited power simply cannot do.
For instance,how much power would it take to make
a square circle,or a married bachelor?
Doug
news:ce9e95d1.03110...@posting.google.com:
I believe that along with having unlimited power, omnipotence also entails
being able to do absolutely *anything*, without restrictions. (Since you
have infinite power, there shouldn't be anything that can stop you)
That means that if god creates a rock of mass X, there shouldn't be
anything that can stop him from picking it up.
Regardless of how large a rock god makes, he can still lift it. The reason
is not just that he has unlimited power, but that not being able to pick it
up would mean he didn't have unlimited power.
However, this suggests that god is restricted in what he can do. He can not
do anything to invalidate his power. If god is restricted then he is not
omnipotent. Omnipotence itself is an impossible characteristic for anything
to have.
So the answer to the question, "Can god create a rock even he cannot
lift?", is no.
Regards,
Doug
Matt Silberstein
EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com>:
So what did the argument above, about and omnipotent God and an
unliftable rock have to do with the Bible?
Matt Silberstein
<no...@none.com>:
To which I repeat: SFW? So God can create Universes and people
and cats and stuff, but can't create a rock so big he can't lift
it. BFD.
Elroy Willis
> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Editor of EvilBible.com"
>>>> Sorry, but no. If something can't handle primitive chariots on a level
>>>> plain regardless of the material they're built from, there''s no reason
>>>> to look at something much more difficult.
>>> What did the argument above have to do with primitive chariots?
>> There's a passage in the Bible which says that God could not defeat an
>> army because they had iron chariots.
> So what did the argument above, about and omnipotent God and an
> unliftable rock have to do with the Bible?
Probably has to do with the idea that some gods are claimed to be
omnipotent or all-powerful during human battles which they're
supposed to be involved, and it turns out they aren't omnipotent at
all, or to be blunt, that they don't exist at all.
Look at the ark of the covenant, and the god that supposedly told
Moses how to create it. Moses did so, yet the people who carried the
ark around still got their butts kicked in several different wars or
skirmishes or battles. The ark was even stolen on at least one
occasion, and the people who stole it were punished with of all
things, hemorrhoids, or emerods.
Not much different than some iron chariots, really. Even the people
with iron chariots got their butts kicked on occasion. I'm sure they
made up excuses why they lost certain battles, but so does everyone
else who believes in some god who rules over some group of people.
When a battle is lost or things go wrong, then the tribal god is mad,
or the people did something wrong, and when things go well, the god
is happy and pleased with his people.
It makes no difference if the god even exists, since people will
imagine that it does, and make up excuses about what went wrong,
or why things are going well, in relation to what some invisible god
thinks about the actions of humans.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Scott
> In article <zTypb.661$HT3.41...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> sc...@nospam.net says...
> >
> > "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1a101545f...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > In article <ce9e95d1.03110...@posting.google.com>,
> > > jke...@zoomnet.net says...
> > > > http://www.tektonics.org/rockon.htm
> > > >
> > > Oh, gee you found a tired old apologetic. The theist apology
> > > intentionally misses the point. A self contradictory definition is
> > > *not* being made. The question is whether god can do X, where X is
for
> > > god to do something that even he doesn't have the power to undo. It
is
> > > clear from the definition of omnipotence that such a being would have
> > > the power to take away his own power, if that is the only way to make
> > > such a rock. Thus, the question itself is not logically inconsistent.
> >
> > http://answers.org/apologetics/omnipotence.html
>
>
> Don't quote me 20 pages of pat answers, you stupid son of a bitch. I
> know how theists try to redefine omnipotence. I've read tons of
> apologetics by theists on subjects like this in particular, including
> your long boring list of straw men. If you are not smart enough to
> state the argument yourself and specifically address the issues I raise
> then I won't waste any more time on you.
>
What makes you think you were worth any more effort than that you stupid
mother fucking son of a bitch?
John Hattan
Weird. I wasn't aware that theists themselves were able to define what
phrases do and do not offend their god. You'd think the god would want
to define what does and does not offend him.
>2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>dishonest.
My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
John Hattan
A good portion of Bible believers (including the one who started this
thread) believe their god to be omnipotent. If you don't believe your
god to be omnipotent, take it up with the guy who started the thread
with the argument that the rock-test is nonsensical and that his god is
still omnipotent.
Scott
John Hattan
>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
Ahh, I see. So "all powerful" means "not really all powerful". Thanks
for that pointer there.
Elroy Willis
> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> Wow, so we have shown that God is not "all-powerful".
>>> Uh oh. That's blasphemy there. You might wanna borrow my iron chariot :)
>> 1) It is blasphemy for some theists, not for others.
> Weird. I wasn't aware that theists themselves were able to define what
> phrases do and do not offend their god. You'd think the god would want
> to define what does and does not offend him.
Flipping a light switch on on Saturnday offends at least one god I
can think of. His name remains a mystery, though... Better to use
a name like HaShem instead, or replace the "o" in God with a "-"
just to be sure you don't offend the god.
>> 2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>> dishonest.
> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
with inferior technology!
Randy Day
[snip]
> > My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>
> Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
> their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
> with inferior technology!
Now WHY did a visual of a Warhammer 40k battle
just cross my mind...?
R
Atheist Chair,
EAC Disciplinary Committee
--
There is an 'x' where there should be a 't' in my
email address. Spammers are the lowest form of life.
John Hattan
Gimme a break. You can't even defeat caterpillars on your tomato plants.
I think I'm safe.
Scott
"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:kmhfqv4tqeq0jid9g...@4ax.com...
> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
>
> Ahh, I see. So "all powerful" means "not really all powerful". Thanks
> for that pointer there.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
BTW Is the universe/nature all-powerful?
Scott
John Hattan
>"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>news:kmhfqv4tqeq0jid9g...@4ax.com...
>> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
>>
>> Ahh, I see. So "all powerful" means "not really all powerful". Thanks
>> for that pointer there.
>
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
Dunno why these folks keep having to water down the term "omnipotence"
to mean something less than omnipotence. It's not like it's a term that
actually applies to reality.
>BTW Is the universe/nature all-powerful?
Given that the amount of energy in the universe is finite, the answer's
an obvious "no".
quibbler
jke...@zoomnet.net says...
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a10b5a17...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
> > In article <zTypb.661$HT3.41...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> > sc...@nospam.net says...
> > >
> > > "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1a101545f...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > > In article <ce9e95d1.03110...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > jke...@zoomnet.net says...
> > > > > http://www.tektonics.org/rockon.htm
> > > > >
> > > > Oh, gee you found a tired old apologetic. The theist apology
> > > > intentionally misses the point. A self contradictory definition is
> > > > *not* being made. The question is whether god can do X, where X is for
> > > > god to do something that even he doesn't have the power to undo. It is
> > > > clear from the definition of omnipotence that such a being would have
> > > > the power to take away his own power, if that is the only way to make
> > > > such a rock. Thus, the question itself is not logically inconsistent.
> > >
> > > http://answers.org/apologetics/omnipotence.html
> >
> >
> > Don't quote me 20 pages of pat answers, you stupid son of a bitch.
>
> The use of profanity signals the non-use of reason.
That's a non sequitur and a lame grade school mantra. I used the
profanity for a rational reason. The person quoted back a tired old
apologetic without thinking or reading what I had read. The apologetic
did not address the issues I raised. Therefore scott did not pass the
Turing test and was correctly branded a stupid son of a bitch.
>
> >I know how theists try to redefine omnipotence.
>
> Omnipotence means having unlimited power,but there things
> which even unlimited power simply cannot do.
I'm quite well aware of that apologetic as well. It depends
upon what kind of "power" one is talking about, of course. I agree
that no amount of thermodynamic power can alter certain things.
However, that's not the only kind of "power" one might mean. People
like Hume simply meant "power" to mean the ability to accomplish some
objective. Therefore, to the extent that one cannot accomplish
something one lacks some kind of power. Basically you are equivocating
about what "unlimited" means. Unlimited doesn't necessarily just mean
as much thermodynamic power as one wishes, for example. It may also
mean unlimited in the quality of powers to accomplish tasks.
>
> For instance,how much power would it take to make
> a square circle,or a married bachelor?
As I said, I'm quite familiar with this silly line of argument. I
wasn't suggesting that one needed a certain power to perform illogical
operations. You should try to follow the arguments I actually used. I
pointed out that there are impossible things regardless of whether one
is human or god. However, the bible incorrectly states, as in Mark
10:27, "all things are possible with God." You've provided some
examples of things that are not even possible for god, thereby
disproving the biblical claim. Furthermore, as I pointed out, it's not
necessarily the case that the big rock question is asking the logically
impossible. There are interpretations of it that are logically
possible.
Further, if god is limited by logic, then we need to know that the
concept of god itself is logically consistent and that his
alleged powers are consistent with logic. You are so obsessed with
attempting to disprove what you perceive as an attack on your fictional
god that you aren't even willing to think about the actual implications
of the argument in question.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>> Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>> their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>> with inferior technology!
> Gimme a break. You can't even defeat caterpillars on your tomato plants.
> I think I'm safe.
Well... Er... You can't control your toy rocket trajectories either!
SO there!
quibbler
matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom says...
So fucking lots of things. Firstly, it means, by some interpretations,
that the god critter is limited by logic, which some people like
Descartes denied. Secondly, it is not logically inconsistent to talk
about whether an omnipotent being can limit his own power. In fact it
is clear that it should be able to and yet dares not. This suggests
that god may even know fear.
>So God can create Universes
Not true. A universe is unlimited and perhaps eternal. It would be
logically impossible for god to create something that is eternal and by
some definitions the universe is eternal. In the same way, it's not
clear that even an unlimited being could create another unlimited
thing. An unlimited thing would have no need to create anything.
> and people
> and cats and stuff, but can't create a rock so big he can't lift
> it. BFD.
Yeah, it's a bigger deal than you think. It's all part of cosmology.
quibbler
I gave you an argument that you couldn't answer. It's not about me
being worthy. It's about you being worthless. Now fuck off and die
you pathetic piece of shit.
Scott
I'll ask you the same question I asked John since it appears you contradict
him about the universe. He says the universe is finite (which I agree) and
therefore not all-powerful and you say it is unlimited. IYO, is
Nature/Universe all-powerful?
It would be
> logically impossible for god to create something that is eternal and by
> some definitions the universe is eternal. In the same way, it's not
> clear that even an unlimited being could create another unlimited
> thing. An unlimited thing would have no need to create anything.
the universe maybe eternal into the future but not look that way into the
past. I have that on good authority:
http://www.counterbalance.net/cqinterv/cq1-30-body.html
>
>
> > and people
> > and cats and stuff, but can't create a rock so big he can't lift
> > it. BFD.
>
> Yeah, it's a bigger deal than you think. It's all part of cosmology.
You're saying this to Matt??? Man, you can't even begin to understand how
stupid you appear.
Scott
Scott
That all depends on the validity of your argument. You now have a ref giving
the historical/traditional meaning of an "all-powerful" deity that
contradicts you fuck headed argument.
Doug
If god COULD create a rock so big he couldn't lift, then he would not have
unlimited power.
If god CANNOT create a rock heavy enough to prevent himself from lifting
it, then he is not omnipotent.
In either case god is restricited in what he can do, and is therefore not
omnipotent.
Matt Silberstein
Perhaps you would think that, I don't see how God is limited by
your thinking.
>>2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>dishonest.
>
>My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
If you wish to use dishonest tactics, go ahead. It will fool few
people.
John Kelley
> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
> >news:kmhfqv4tqeq0jid9g...@4ax.com...
> >> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
> >>
> >> Ahh, I see. So "all powerful" means "not really all powerful". Thanks
> >> for that pointer there.
> >
> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
>
> Dunno why these folks keep having to water down the term "omnipotence"
> to mean something less than omnipotence. It's not like it's a term that
> actually applies to reality.
>
Omnipotent-able to do anything that can be done.
Omnivorous-able to eat anything that can be eaten.
Fred Stone
That really doesn't help the case of an omniscient, omnipotent god.
There are all sorts of interesting paradoxes of knowledge, *especially*
self-knowledge; by the time you whittle away everything that "isn't
logically possible" there won't be much left but what any person can
possibly know, or do.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
John Hattan
Excellent point.
On that note, I don't think that your god would be offended by me saying
that he enjoys handfuls of Oxycontin while sniffing the bicycle seats at
his local grade-school, he likes to eat cookie-dough with absinthe
chasers while masturbating to "Dora The Explorer", he spends his
weekends writing letters to TV networks pitching his new reality-show
"Who Wants To Touch My Sphincter For A Big Bag Of Crack", and he thought
that "Matrix 2" was better than the original.
Boy, it's awfully nice of your god to allow me to define blasphemy out
of existence like that. If only my wife was so flexible as to allow me
to define "marital fidelity" as "occasionally getting my toes sucked by
a Japanese prostitute", I'd be a happy man theologically AND physically!
>>>2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>dishonest.
>>
>>My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>
>If you wish to use dishonest tactics, go ahead. It will fool few
>people.
To quote Abraham Lincoln, you can fool some of the people some of the
time, but you fool even more if you run over those who aren't fooled
with an iron chariot.
John Hattan
Fine with me. Omnipotent doesn't mean "all powerful" anymore. It's not
my god anyway, so define him to have tits that squirt cheap liquor for
all I care.
John Hattan
It's quite simple. Since you're allowed to define "omni" as "any
attributes I damn well choose", you can just handwave away any
contradictions by narrowing "omni" at your whim.
Fred Stone
But by their own rule, I am omnipotent. I can do anything that is
possible for me to do.
John Hattan
Interestingly, there's a stapler on my desk that's also omnipotent. It
can do anything that is possible for it to do. . .which in its case is
just to sit there quietly.
quibbler
It's not a "ref" you stupid shit wad. It's just somebody's uninformed,
poorly constructed argument that you found on an apologetics site. It
doesn't address the points I raise and you are clearly not smart enough
to even understand what is being said on either side. Your attempt to
fallaciously appeal to authority is noted. Now shut the fuck up and
stop making an even bigger ass out of yourself. Don't come back until
you can argue and think for yourself, which will probably be never in
your case. Oh and once again please fuck off and die.
quibbler
Finite in what sense? The singularity to which we trace our present
universe could well have had infinite mass, infinite temperatures, etc.
> (which I agree) and
> therefore not all-powerful and you say it is unlimited. IYO, is
> Nature/Universe all-powerful?
As Dr. Sagan said, there is good reason to think that the universe is
"all that every was, is or will be". It is entirely possible that it
encompasses all of space time. It would not be finite in the sense
that it is all there is and there is nothing outside of it. In a like
way, it is quite possible that all the power that exists is contained
within the universe. This is not quite the same thing that many people
mean by omnipotence, which is why your question is awkwardly phrased
and misguided.
>
>
>
> It would be
> > logically impossible for god to create something that is eternal and by
> > some definitions the universe is eternal. In the same way, it's not
> > clear that even an unlimited being could create another unlimited
> > thing. An unlimited thing would have no need to create anything.
>
> the universe maybe eternal into the future but not look that way into the
> past.
It doesn't really matter how it looks. Most cosmologists believe that
the universe itself comprises all space and time. There was no
"before" because there is not "time *before* time". Therefore the
universe is would be eternal, period. It doesn't matter whether it had
a first moment or always was. It would still be eternal by either
standard.
> I have that on good authority:
> http://www.counterbalance.net/cqinterv/cq1-30-body.html
The phrase "beginning from nothing" is quite poorly chosen.
Nothingness is not even a state that can exist. If it could exist then
nothingness would have a property -- namely existence. That would
contradict the definition of nothingness, which is the absence of
properties. BTW, this has nothing to do with any of Guth's handwaving
about "quantum processes".
You will note that actually guth hedges on whether the universe really
needed a beginning, so in fact you do not have it on good authority as
you claim. Even this one guy is not certain and neither are many real
physicists and philosophers.
>
> >
> >
> > > and people
> > > and cats and stuff, but can't create a rock so big he can't lift
> > > it. BFD.
> >
> > Yeah, it's a bigger deal than you think. It's all part of cosmology.
>
> You're saying this to Matt??? Man, you can't even begin to understand how
> stupid you appear.
I'm quite aware that I responded to Matt. You seem to be the one who
is confused. You are not the only person involved in this
conversation. Nothing that I said or did was stupid. You need to
grow up a lot, junior.
John Hattan
>In article <fGSpb.2512$Xf....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
>sc...@nospam.net says...
>> "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1a119f9c5...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> > In article <1fafqv0cja3gsbgus...@4ax.com>,
>> > matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom says...
>> >
>> > >So God can create Universes
>> >
>> > Not true. A universe is unlimited and perhaps eternal.
>>
>> I'll ask you the same question I asked John since it appears you contradict
>> him about the universe. He says the universe is finite
>
>Finite in what sense? The singularity to which we trace our present
>universe could well have had infinite mass, infinite temperatures, etc.
When I referred to the universe being finite, I was referring to the
gross amount of matter and energy in the universe today, and all
indications are that it is indeed finite.
And as far as age goes, there might not be an endpoint per se, but
unless the second law of thermodynamics turns out to be drastically
wrong, there's not gonna be much of a universe to argue about in a
googleplex or so years :)
John Kelley
> > > > > >
> > > > http://answers.org/apologetics/omnipotence.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't quote me 20 pages of pat answers, you stupid son of a bitch. I
> > > know how theists try to redefine omnipotence. I've read tons of
> > > apologetics by theists on subjects like this in particular, including
> > > your long boring list of straw men. If you are not smart enough to
> > > state the argument yourself and specifically address the issues I raise
> > > then I won't waste any more time on you.
> > >
> >
> > What makes you think you were worth any more effort
>
> I gave you an argument that you couldn't answer. It's not about me
> being worthy. It's about you being worthless. Now fuck off and die
> you pathetic piece of shit.
>
Him being worthless?
Let's see the value of Quibbler's "rationality" right here:
http://www.tektonics.org/quibquiz.html
John Hattan
Isn't that the quiz that suggests that you should be a member of the Ku
Klux Klan if you don't agree with the author's responses?
Yeah, that's certainly a quiz that deserves reasonable and rational
answers. Not.
Matt Silberstein
What does my god have to do with any of this? I am trying to
discuss the argument presented.
> would be offended by me saying
>that he enjoys handfuls of Oxycontin while sniffing the bicycle seats at
>his local grade-school, he likes to eat cookie-dough with absinthe
>chasers while masturbating to "Dora The Explorer", he spends his
>weekends writing letters to TV networks pitching his new reality-show
>"Who Wants To Touch My Sphincter For A Big Bag Of Crack", and he thought
>that "Matrix 2" was better than the original.
Wow, you do like cogent logical arguments, don't you.
>Boy, it's awfully nice of your god to allow me to define blasphemy out
>of existence like that.
Huh?
> If only my wife was so flexible
Please, no straight lines.
> as to allow me
>to define "marital fidelity" as "occasionally getting my toes sucked by
>a Japanese prostitute", I'd be a happy man theologically AND physically!
>
>>>>2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>>dishonest.
>>>
>>>My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>>
>>If you wish to use dishonest tactics, go ahead. It will fool few
>>people.
>
>To quote Abraham Lincoln, you can fool some of the people some of the
>time, but you fool even more if you run over those who aren't fooled
>with an iron chariot.
Anytime you want to discuss the rock argument let me know.
John Hattan
Just wondering where your threshold for blasphemy lives. It's gotta be
in there somewhere :)
>>Boy, it's awfully nice of your god to allow me to define blasphemy out
>>of existence like that.
>
>Huh?
>
>> If only my wife was so flexible
>
>Please, no straight lines.
>
>> as to allow me
>>to define "marital fidelity" as "occasionally getting my toes sucked by
>>a Japanese prostitute", I'd be a happy man theologically AND physically!
>>
>>>>>2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>>>dishonest.
>>>>
>>>>My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>>>
>>>If you wish to use dishonest tactics, go ahead. It will fool few
>>>people.
>>
>>To quote Abraham Lincoln, you can fool some of the people some of the
>>time, but you fool even more if you run over those who aren't fooled
>>with an iron chariot.
>
>Anytime you want to discuss the rock argument let me know.
You made your point there already. You don't think that "all powerful"
means "all powerful", but just "really really powerful". Nothing new,
actually. Theists are always willing to water down omni-attributes just
enough to prevent them from contradicting, but no lower.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
> [snip]
>>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>> Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>> their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>> with inferior technology!
> Now WHY did a visual of a Warhammer 40k battle
> just cross my mind...?
My kingdom for an ion cannon.
Editor of EvilBible.com
> jke...@zoomnet.net (John Kelley) wrote:
>
> >John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:<07ofqvotr0vp5155s...@4ax.com>...
> >> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> >"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:kmhfqv4tqeq0jid9g...@4ax.com...
> >> >> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> Ahh, I see. So "all powerful" means "not really all powerful".
Thanks
> >> >> for that pointer there.
> >> >
> >> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
> >>
> >> Dunno why these folks keep having to water down the term "omnipotence"
> >> to mean something less than omnipotence. It's not like it's a term that
> >> actually applies to reality.
> >>
> >I guess you think that omnivores eat rocks,steel,and plutonium.
> >
> >Omnipotent-able to do anything that can be done.
> >Omnivorous-able to eat anything that can be eaten.
>
> Fine with me. Omnipotent doesn't mean "all powerful" anymore. It's not
> my god anyway, so define him to have tits that squirt cheap liquor for
> all I care.
Now that's my type of God! What should we call her? How about "Courtney
Love"? Christians are always saying that God is Love (with a capital "L").
With all the drugs she takes it has to be a miracle she is still alive.
That's it! Courtney Love is really God! I've been saved!
John Hattan
Can we find a god that's a bit less. . .skanky?
Matt Silberstein
I see, rather than discuss the topic you are trying to be
offensive. An interesting twist on ad hominem.
>>>Boy, it's awfully nice of your god to allow me to define blasphemy out
>>>of existence like that.
>>
>>Huh?
>>
>>> If only my wife was so flexible
>>
>>Please, no straight lines.
>>
>>> as to allow me
>>>to define "marital fidelity" as "occasionally getting my toes sucked by
>>>a Japanese prostitute", I'd be a happy man theologically AND physically!
>>>
>>>>>>2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>>>>dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>>My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>>>>
>>>>If you wish to use dishonest tactics, go ahead. It will fool few
>>>>people.
>>>
>>>To quote Abraham Lincoln, you can fool some of the people some of the
>>>time, but you fool even more if you run over those who aren't fooled
>>>with an iron chariot.
>>
>>Anytime you want to discuss the rock argument let me know.
>
>You made your point there already. You don't think that "all powerful"
>means "all powerful", but just "really really powerful".
No, that was not my point. My point was that it does not
*matter*. I was not trying to explore the definition at all. I
just find it insignificant that all-powerful does not mean "able
to do everything and anything". If there were a being able to
create universes, and then showed interest in my life, I would
not care much that this being could not create a rock it could
not life.
> Nothing new,
>actually.
You saw nothing new because you were not interested in seeing
anything.
> Theists are always willing to water down omni-attributes just
>enough to prevent them from contradicting, but no lower.
And this has what to do with me?
John Hattan
>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
><jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>>
>>You made your point there already. You don't think that "all powerful"
>>means "all powerful", but just "really really powerful".
>
>No, that was not my point. My point was that it does not
>*matter*. I was not trying to explore the definition at all. I
>just find it insignificant that all-powerful does not mean "able
>to do everything and anything". If there were a being able to
>create universes, and then showed interest in my life, I would
>not care much that this being could not create a rock it could
>not life.
Do you often spend time defending points about which you don't care?
>> Nothing new,
>>actually.
>
>You saw nothing new because you were not interested in seeing
>anything.
>
>> Theists are always willing to water down omni-attributes just
>>enough to prevent them from contradicting, but no lower.
>
>And this has what to do with me?
Nothing, I guess :)
Matt Silberstein
<e...@airmail.net>:
>John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>>>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>>>> Wow, so we have shown that God is not "all-powerful".
>
>>>> Uh oh. That's blasphemy there. You might wanna borrow my iron chariot :)
>
>>> 1) It is blasphemy for some theists, not for others.
>
>> Weird. I wasn't aware that theists themselves were able to define what
>> phrases do and do not offend their god. You'd think the god would want
>> to define what does and does not offend him.
>
>Flipping a light switch on on Saturnday offends at least one god I
>can think of. His name remains a mystery, though... Better to use
>a name like HaShem instead, or replace the "o" in God with a "-"
>just to be sure you don't offend the god.
You did not learn the lesson, did you. You can use whatever name
you want, but please stop trying to pretend you have some
understanding of Judaism. Unless you are Jewish there is no
chance that your turning on a light on Shabbat is offensive.
Second, it is not offensive to God when you don't follow the
rules about Shabbat. Please either stop writing about subjects
you are ignorant of or learn about the topic.
>>> 2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>> dishonest.
>
>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>
>Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>with inferior technology!
What do you think of dishonesty?
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com>:
Which brings us to my point. Strip out all those logical
contradictions and paradoxes and all we are left with is a being
that, if it exists, can create universes on a whim. You guys
might think of reading some of the material on this, this
question was discussed by better minds than hours hundreds of
years ago.
Matt Silberstein
<jo...@thecodezone.com>:
I wonder if you can find the term "omni" anywhere in the Bible.
John Hattan
>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Elroy Willis
><e...@airmail.net>:
>>John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>>>>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Wow, so we have shown that God is not "all-powerful".
>>
>>>>> Uh oh. That's blasphemy there. You might wanna borrow my iron chariot :)
>>
>>>> 1) It is blasphemy for some theists, not for others.
>>
>>> Weird. I wasn't aware that theists themselves were able to define what
>>> phrases do and do not offend their god. You'd think the god would want
>>> to define what does and does not offend him.
>>
>>Flipping a light switch on on Saturnday offends at least one god I
>>can think of. His name remains a mystery, though... Better to use
>>a name like HaShem instead, or replace the "o" in God with a "-"
>>just to be sure you don't offend the god.
>
>You did not learn the lesson, did you. You can use whatever name
>you want, but please stop trying to pretend you have some
>understanding of Judaism. Unless you are Jewish there is no
>chance that your turning on a light on Shabbat is offensive.
I don't recognize the existence of any gods at all, so following your
logic there is nothing I can do to offend one.
Yet most Christians will insist I'll be punished for not believing in
their god. Weird.
>>>> 2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>> dishonest.
>>
>>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>>
>>Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>>their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>>with inferior technology!
>
>What do you think of dishonesty?
I think it'd be worth 17 points if I played it in Scrabble. Too many
common letters. The only letter worth much is the Y.
Still, it'd be good if I needed to dump common letters, as it's got
quite a few common words hiding in there, like "shone", "one", "nest",
and "dish".
John Hattan
Weird. When I earlier said "Theists are always willing to water down
omni-attributes just enough to prevent them from contradicting, but no
lower", you said that didn't apply to you. Now you're doing exactly
that.
John Hattan
>I wonder if you can find the term "omni" anywhere in the Bible.
Yeah, it's in the Apocrypha. It was Jesus' favorite magazine.
Scott
> In article <fGSpb.2512$Xf....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
> sc...@nospam.net says...
> >
> > "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1a119f9c5...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > In article <1fafqv0cja3gsbgus...@4ax.com>,
> > > matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom says...
snipping
> > > >So God can create Universes
> > >
> > > Not true. A universe is unlimited and perhaps eternal.
> >
> > I'll ask you the same question I asked John since it appears you
contradict
> > him about the universe. He says the universe is finite
>
> Finite in what sense? The singularity to which we trace our present
> universe could well have had infinite mass, infinite temperatures, etc.
That all the mass and energy in the Universe is finite and as the Universe
expands that energy will continue to cool off until it becomes a cold dark
place. If that's ture, and current research indicates it is, how can the
Universe be "unlimited"? If you still believe that it is, how would you even
know that it's unlimited?
>
>
> > (which I agree) and
> > therefore not all-powerful and you say it is unlimited. IYO, is
> > Nature/Universe all-powerful?
>
> As Dr. Sagan said, there is good reason to think that the universe is
> "all that every was, is or will be". It is entirely possible that it
> encompasses all of space time. It would not be finite in the sense
> that it is all there is and there is nothing outside of it. In a like
> way, it is quite possible that all the power that exists is contained
> within the universe. This is not quite the same thing that many people
> mean by omnipotence, which is why your question is awkwardly phrased
> and misguided.
I don't give a rat's ass about what "many people mean by omnipotence"? What
counts is the traditional meaning that's still in use today by phylosophers
and theologians; you've been given refs for that. All-powerful equates to
ultimate power. If the universe is, as you say, unlimited then a property of
it should be unlimited power. Its power should be infinite.
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be
> > > logically impossible for god to create something that is eternal and
by
> > > some definitions the universe is eternal. In the same way, it's not
> > > clear that even an unlimited being could create another unlimited
> > > thing. An unlimited thing would have no need to create anything.
> >
> > the universe maybe eternal into the future but not look that way into
the
> > past.
>
> It doesn't really matter how it looks. Most cosmologists believe that
> the universe itself comprises all space and time. There was no
> "before" because there is not "time *before* time". Therefore the
> universe is would be eternal, period. It doesn't matter whether it had
> a first moment or always was. It would still be eternal by either
> standard.
wrong shortcut http://www.counterbalance.net/cqinterv/cq1-37-body.html
Matt Silberstein
>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Elroy Willis
>><e...@airmail.net>:
>>>John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>>>>>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Wow, so we have shown that God is not "all-powerful".
>>>
>>>>>> Uh oh. That's blasphemy there. You might wanna borrow my iron chariot :)
>>>
>>>>> 1) It is blasphemy for some theists, not for others.
>>>
>>>> Weird. I wasn't aware that theists themselves were able to define what
>>>> phrases do and do not offend their god. You'd think the god would want
>>>> to define what does and does not offend him.
>>>
>>>Flipping a light switch on on Saturnday offends at least one god I
>>>can think of. His name remains a mystery, though... Better to use
>>>a name like HaShem instead, or replace the "o" in God with a "-"
>>>just to be sure you don't offend the god.
>>
>>You did not learn the lesson, did you. You can use whatever name
>>you want, but please stop trying to pretend you have some
>>understanding of Judaism. Unless you are Jewish there is no
>>chance that your turning on a light on Shabbat is offensive.
>
>I don't recognize the existence of any gods at all, so following your
>logic there is nothing I can do to offend one.
No, you don't follow the logic. The rules of Shabbat are rules of
one particular religion. In that religion those particular rules
only apply to the members of that religion. That does not mean
all rules, not even all rules of that religion, only apply to
members of the religion.
>Yet most Christians will insist I'll be punished for not believing in
>their god. Weird.
What is weird, ISTM, is your insistence that all theists have the
same views. Or that their views are as simplistic as you assert.
>>>>> 2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>>> dishonest.
>>>
>>>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>>>
>>>Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>>>their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>>>with inferior technology!
>>
>>What do you think of dishonesty?
>
>I think it'd be worth 17 points if I played it in Scrabble. Too many
>common letters. The only letter worth much is the Y.
>
>Still, it'd be good if I needed to dump common letters, as it's got
>quite a few common words hiding in there, like "shone", "one", "nest",
>and "dish".
So now I will ask the atheists in this thread a question I ask
theists: anyone willing to stand up and defend the dishonesty
here? John has clearly make the point that he has no problems
with acting dishonestly to promote his POV. I see plenty of
people object when they see that from a Christian, do you object
when someone on your side does it?
Matt Silberstein
<jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>><jo...@thecodezone.com>:
Yet more unmarked snips. John does not seem to like to deal with
his own words.
>>>You made your point there already. You don't think that "all powerful"
>>>means "all powerful", but just "really really powerful".
>>
>>No, that was not my point. My point was that it does not
>>*matter*. I was not trying to explore the definition at all. I
>>just find it insignificant that all-powerful does not mean "able
>>to do everything and anything". If there were a being able to
>>create universes, and then showed interest in my life, I would
>>not care much that this being could not create a rock it could
>>not life.
>
>Do you often spend time defending points about which you don't care?
I do care that the argument is poor. Are you actually have
problems understanding this?
>>> Nothing new,
>>>actually.
>>
>>You saw nothing new because you were not interested in seeing
>>anything.
>>
>>> Theists are always willing to water down omni-attributes just
>>>enough to prevent them from contradicting, but no lower.
>>
>>And this has what to do with me?
>
>Nothing, I guess :)
Keep guessing. Me, I try to avoid making comments until I have
some appropriate knowledge.
Matt Silberstein
<jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
Yet more unmarked snips.
>>I wonder if you can find the term "omni" anywhere in the Bible.
>
>Yeah, it's in the Apocrypha. It was Jesus' favorite magazine.
IOW it is not there and you have no actual point. You are trying
to make a semantic argument on a term that is not actually in
play.
Matt Silberstein
<jo...@thecodezone.com>:
One more time: where does the Bible (or Koran or Bagadavita) use
the term omni? Where have I watered anything down?
John Hattan
>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
><jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Yet more unmarked snips.
>
>>>I wonder if you can find the term "omni" anywhere in the Bible.
>>
>>Yeah, it's in the Apocrypha. It was Jesus' favorite magazine.
>
>IOW it is not there and you have no actual point.
Jesus H. Christ Eatin' Hot Pockets, get a sense of humor willya?
John Hattan
As is Christianity's statement that recognition of the Christian god is
required to avoid eternal punishment.
>In that religion those particular rules
>only apply to the members of that religion.
Ditto for Christianity's statement that recognition of the Christian god
is required to avoid eternal punishment.
>That does not mean
>all rules, not even all rules of that religion, only apply to
>members of the religion.
>
>>Yet most Christians will insist I'll be punished for not believing in
>>their god. Weird.
>
>What is weird, ISTM, is your insistence that all theists have the
>same views. Or that their views are as simplistic as you assert.
[John looks at his use of the word "most" in his previous statement]
Uh huh.
>>>>>> 2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>
>>>>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>>>>
>>>>Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>>>>their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>>>>with inferior technology!
>>>
>>>What do you think of dishonesty?
>>
>>I think it'd be worth 17 points if I played it in Scrabble. Too many
>>common letters. The only letter worth much is the Y.
>>
>>Still, it'd be good if I needed to dump common letters, as it's got
>>quite a few common words hiding in there, like "shone", "one", "nest",
>>and "dish".
>
>So now I will ask the atheists in this thread a question I ask
>theists: anyone willing to stand up and defend the dishonesty
>here? John has clearly make the point that he has no problems
>with acting dishonestly to promote his POV. I see plenty of
>people object when they see that from a Christian, do you object
>when someone on your side does it?
Pound sand, whiny bitchgoddess.
Elroy Willis
> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Elroy Willis
>> John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>>>>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>>> Wow, so we have shown that God is not "all-powerful".
>>>>> Uh oh. That's blasphemy there. You might wanna borrow my iron chariot :)
>>>> 1) It is blasphemy for some theists, not for others.
>>> Weird. I wasn't aware that theists themselves were able to define what
>>> phrases do and do not offend their god. You'd think the god would want
>>> to define what does and does not offend him.
>> Flipping a light switch on on Saturnday offends at least one god I
>> can think of. His name remains a mystery, though... Better to use
>> a name like HaShem instead, or replace the "o" in God with a "-"
>> just to be sure you don't offend the god.
> You did not learn the lesson, did you. You can use whatever name
> you want, but please stop trying to pretend you have some
> understanding of Judaism. Unless you are Jewish there is no
> chance that your turning on a light on Shabbat is offensive.
> Second, it is not offensive to God when you don't follow the
> rules about Shabbat. Please either stop writing about subjects
> you are ignorant of or learn about the topic.
I watched an interesting film yesterday called "Snow in August"
which was about a young Irish Catholic boy who made friends with a
Jewish rabbi, and the boy ended up making a golem come to life by
chanting the true name of god. He was saying Yah Haw Veh Hey
or something like that, over and over, and, TADA, the dirt golem came
to life and saved the day!
>>>> 2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>> dishonest.
>>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>>Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>>their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>>with inferior technology!
> What do you think of dishonesty?
Intentional dishonesty is the pits.
Matt Silberstein
So?
>>In that religion those particular rules
>>only apply to the members of that religion.
>
>Ditto for Christianity's statement that recognition of the Christian god
>is required to avoid eternal punishment.
Nope. Christianity claims those rules apply to all. (OK, some
Christians will claim it applies to all who have heard of
Christ.) As such, under their view, rejecting Christ will lead
you to punishment. OTOH Christianity does not demand chastity.
Christian Holy Order do (all AFAIK, but I could be wrong) require
chastity. So you are not condemned for unchaste behavior if you
are not a member of those orders. Do you understand the
distinction?
>>That does not mean
>>all rules, not even all rules of that religion, only apply to
>>members of the religion.
>>
>>>Yet most Christians will insist I'll be punished for not believing in
>>>their god. Weird.
>>
>>What is weird, ISTM, is your insistence that all theists have the
>>same views. Or that their views are as simplistic as you assert.
>
>[John looks at his use of the word "most" in his previous statement]
>
>Uh huh.
The most does not do a thing to modify my point. You are trying
to apply your understanding of some Christian rules to other
religions. And that application does not work.
>>>>>>> 2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>>>>>their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>>>>>with inferior technology!
>>>>
>>>>What do you think of dishonesty?
>>>
>>>I think it'd be worth 17 points if I played it in Scrabble. Too many
>>>common letters. The only letter worth much is the Y.
>>>
>>>Still, it'd be good if I needed to dump common letters, as it's got
>>>quite a few common words hiding in there, like "shone", "one", "nest",
>>>and "dish".
>>
>>So now I will ask the atheists in this thread a question I ask
>>theists: anyone willing to stand up and defend the dishonesty
>>here? John has clearly make the point that he has no problems
>>with acting dishonestly to promote his POV. I see plenty of
>>people object when they see that from a Christian, do you object
>>when someone on your side does it?
>
>Pound sand, whiny bitchgoddess.
And again you resort to insult as a substitute for argument. Are
you trolling? Are you a theist trying to make atheists look bad?
Matt Silberstein
Never saw the film. I doubt it is considered canon.
>>>>> 2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>>> dishonest.
>
>>>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>
>>>Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>>>their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>>>with inferior technology!
>
>> What do you think of dishonesty?
>
>Intentional dishonesty is the pits.
Do you think that John's frequent unmarked snips, especially
where he uses them to avoid dealing with other's arguments, are
dishonest? Intentional?
Matt Silberstein
<jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>><jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>>>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>Yet more unmarked snips.
>>
>>>>I wonder if you can find the term "omni" anywhere in the Bible.
>>>
>>>Yeah, it's in the Apocrypha. It was Jesus' favorite magazine.
>>
>>IOW it is not there and you have no actual point.
>
>Jesus H. Christ Eatin' Hot Pockets, get a sense of humor willya?
Yeah, I got the joke, such as it was. I also saw that it was used
as an attempt to avoid dealing the point. Let me make it as clear
as I can: you are making a major deal about a term "omni' that
does not appear in the religious works in question. Even a casual
reading of the Torah shows that God has various limitations. In
fact, I can't see how any entity could have any qualities and not
have limitations. If you want to make a real point about
limitations deal with what the text actually says. But make a
choice: either you can try to beat up on the ignorant or not
knowledgeable. If the ignorant then you don't have to know much
about the topic. But you will also not make any substantiative
points. If the knowledgeable then you have to learn something
about the topic. Most of these questions have been explored. You
may well not find the answers fulfilling. That is fine, but
ignorance of the answers does not make them go away.
John Hattan
So, following your logic, I've got nothing to fear from not
acknowledging the existence of the Christian god, as not following the
rules he allegedly created would be offensive.
>>>In that religion those particular rules
>>>only apply to the members of that religion.
>>
>>Ditto for Christianity's statement that recognition of the Christian god
>>is required to avoid eternal punishment.
>
>Nope. Christianity claims those rules apply to all. (OK, some
>Christians will claim it applies to all who have heard of
>Christ.) As such, under their view, rejecting Christ will lead
>you to punishment. OTOH Christianity does not demand chastity.
>Christian Holy Order do (all AFAIK, but I could be wrong) require
>chastity. So you are not condemned for unchaste behavior if you
>are not a member of those orders. Do you understand the
>distinction?
Not really. Why should the rules of some religion apply to me if I'm not
a practitioner of that religion?
>>>That does not mean
>>>all rules, not even all rules of that religion, only apply to
>>>members of the religion.
>>>
>>>>Yet most Christians will insist I'll be punished for not believing in
>>>>their god. Weird.
>>>
>>>What is weird, ISTM, is your insistence that all theists have the
>>>same views. Or that their views are as simplistic as you assert.
>>
>>[John looks at his use of the word "most" in his previous statement]
>>
>>Uh huh.
>
>The most does not do a thing to modify my point. You are trying
>to apply your understanding of some Christian rules to other
>religions. And that application does not work.
Apparently not. It apparently only applies to religions that you
yourself don't follow :)
>>>>>>>> 2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>>>>>>their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>>>>>>with inferior technology!
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you think of dishonesty?
>>>>
>>>>I think it'd be worth 17 points if I played it in Scrabble. Too many
>>>>common letters. The only letter worth much is the Y.
>>>>
>>>>Still, it'd be good if I needed to dump common letters, as it's got
>>>>quite a few common words hiding in there, like "shone", "one", "nest",
>>>>and "dish".
>>>
>>>So now I will ask the atheists in this thread a question I ask
>>>theists: anyone willing to stand up and defend the dishonesty
>>>here? John has clearly make the point that he has no problems
>>>with acting dishonestly to promote his POV. I see plenty of
>>>people object when they see that from a Christian, do you object
>>>when someone on your side does it?
>>
>>Pound sand, whiny bitchgoddess.
>
>And again you resort to insult as a substitute for argument. Are
>you trolling? Are you a theist trying to make atheists look bad?
Of course. Praise Jeebus.
John Hattan
>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
><jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>>><jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>>>>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yet more unmarked snips.
>>>
>>>>>I wonder if you can find the term "omni" anywhere in the Bible.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, it's in the Apocrypha. It was Jesus' favorite magazine.
>>>
>>>IOW it is not there and you have no actual point.
>>
>>Jesus H. Christ Eatin' Hot Pockets, get a sense of humor willya?
>
>Yeah, I got the joke, such as it was. I also saw that it was used
>as an attempt to avoid dealing the point. Let me make it as clear
>as I can: you are making a major deal about a term "omni' that
>does not appear in the religious works in question.
Nope. I've said a dozen times that you're free to define the god(s) you
worship in any way you choose. If you want a god that's all-powerful,
that's fine. If you want a god that's just short enough of all-powerful
to prevent this power from conflicting with other attributes, go for it.
If you wanna define your god as a 900 foot-tall carrot or as a toupeed
actor, that's fine with me too.
>Even a casual
>reading of the Torah shows that God has various limitations.
I'll trust you on it. I gave up long ago on trying to quantify the
abilities given to various gods by various holy-books. It's like trying
to figure out which fantasy authors prefer four-legged dragons and which
prefer two-legged ones.
>In
>fact, I can't see how any entity could have any qualities and not
>have limitations. If you want to make a real point about
>limitations deal with what the text actually says.
Why do you keep pointing me to somesuch holy book or other and demanding
that I show you something in it? The only text the original poster
posted was a web-page that handwaved away the problems with omnipotence.
. . .ooh, I sense a sanctimonious soliloquy approaching. I will
appropriately hum "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" as background music.
>But make a
>choice: either you can try to beat up on the ignorant or not
>knowledgeable. If the ignorant then you don't have to know much
>about the topic. But you will also not make any substantiative
>points. If the knowledgeable then you have to learn something
>about the topic. Most of these questions have been explored. You
>may well not find the answers fulfilling. That is fine, but
>ignorance of the answers does not make them go away.
[John waves his lighter in the air]
WOOHOO!! NOW DO FREEBIRD!!!
John Hattan
>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Elroy Willis
><e...@airmail.net>:
>>Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
>>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Elroy Willis
>>>> John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>
> <marked snip, so theist bitchgoddesses don't get whiny again>
>
>>>>>> 2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>>>> dishonest.
>>
>>>>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>>
>>>>Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>>>>their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>>>>with inferior technology!
>>
>>> What do you think of dishonesty?
>>
>>Intentional dishonesty is the pits.
>
>Do you think that John's frequent unmarked snips, especially
>where he uses them to avoid dealing with other's arguments, are
>dishonest? Intentional?
[John switches the EAC-issue painfield generator off "standby" and keys
in the serial number corresponding to the biochip implanted in Elroy's
right testicle]
Go ahead Elroy. Answer the man.
stoney
Message ID: <svugqvovqevtsc1do...@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <fGSpb.2512$Xf....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
>>sc...@nospam.net says...
>>> "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1a119f9c5...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>>> > In article <1fafqv0cja3gsbgus...@4ax.com>,
>>> > matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom says...
>>> >
>>> > >So God can create Universes
>>> >
>>> > Not true. A universe is unlimited and perhaps eternal.
>>>
>>> I'll ask you the same question I asked John since it appears you contradict
>>> him about the universe. He says the universe is finite
>>
>>Finite in what sense? The singularity to which we trace our present
>>universe could well have had infinite mass, infinite temperatures, etc.
>
>When I referred to the universe being finite, I was referring to the
>gross amount of matter and energy in the universe today, and all
>indications are that it is indeed finite.
>
>And as far as age goes, there might not be an endpoint per se, but
>unless the second law of thermodynamics turns out to be drastically
>wrong, there's not gonna be much of a universe to argue about in a
>googleplex or so years :)
I'll make sure not to put anything on my schedule during that time
frame....... :)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
stoney
Message ID: <cc5iqv4r5g8q79ale...@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>I wonder if you can find the term "omni" anywhere in the Bible.
>
>Yeah, it's in the Apocrypha. It was Jesus' favorite magazine.
Gosh. And here I thought it was "Slavegirl magazine." Of course, the
palmy thing would be 'dated'.....
::::::::::::::FFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"""""""""""""""""
John Hattan
November 8, 10^10^100 CE
8:00 AM
Stare at the energyless sea of quarks that the universe has become.
Muse about how much better things were before the last black holes
evaporated.
9:00 AM
Check to see if Jesus has returned yet.
10:00 AM
Wonder why you were the only thing in the universe that was
immune to proton decay.
11:00 AM
Stare blankly at nothing for a billion years.
Matt Silberstein
I have no idea what logic you are following, but that is not
mine. I have no made any claims about what you should fear, but
the closest I have come says pretty much the opposite of what you
claim. Let me try one more time. Jewish rules regarding Shabbat
only cover Jews. As such a non-Jew does not, according to the
Jews, offend God by, say, lighting a fire on Shabbat. Christian
rules regarding accepting Christ, OTOH, they claim apply to all
who have heard of Christ. I hope this is finally clear to you.
>>>>In that religion those particular rules
>>>>only apply to the members of that religion.
>>>
>>>Ditto for Christianity's statement that recognition of the Christian god
>>>is required to avoid eternal punishment.
>>
>>Nope. Christianity claims those rules apply to all. (OK, some
>>Christians will claim it applies to all who have heard of
>>Christ.) As such, under their view, rejecting Christ will lead
>>you to punishment. OTOH Christianity does not demand chastity.
>>Christian Holy Order do (all AFAIK, but I could be wrong) require
>>chastity. So you are not condemned for unchaste behavior if you
>>are not a member of those orders. Do you understand the
>>distinction?
>
>Not really. Why should the rules of some religion apply to me if I'm not
>a practitioner of that religion?
If God has made those rules and if God says they apply to all,
then they apply to all. I don't know why that concept is hard for
you to understand.
>>>>That does not mean
>>>>all rules, not even all rules of that religion, only apply to
>>>>members of the religion.
>>>>
>>>>>Yet most Christians will insist I'll be punished for not believing in
>>>>>their god. Weird.
>>>>
>>>>What is weird, ISTM, is your insistence that all theists have the
>>>>same views. Or that their views are as simplistic as you assert.
>>>
>>>[John looks at his use of the word "most" in his previous statement]
>>>
>>>Uh huh.
>>
>>The most does not do a thing to modify my point. You are trying
>>to apply your understanding of some Christian rules to other
>>religions. And that application does not work.
>
>Apparently not. It apparently only applies to religions that you
>yourself don't follow :)
And what religions are those?
>>>>>>>>> 2) Please don't make unmarked ships, it is misleading and
>>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My iron chariot can defeat most unmarked ships, so I'm unconcerned :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your iron chariots can't do squat against my titanium chariots and
>>>>>>>their kevlar-wearing chariot drivers. Your army is composed of wimps
>>>>>>>with inferior technology!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What do you think of dishonesty?
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it'd be worth 17 points if I played it in Scrabble. Too many
>>>>>common letters. The only letter worth much is the Y.
>>>>>
>>>>>Still, it'd be good if I needed to dump common letters, as it's got
>>>>>quite a few common words hiding in there, like "shone", "one", "nest",
>>>>>and "dish".
>>>>
>>>>So now I will ask the atheists in this thread a question I ask
>>>>theists: anyone willing to stand up and defend the dishonesty
>>>>here? John has clearly make the point that he has no problems
>>>>with acting dishonestly to promote his POV. I see plenty of
>>>>people object when they see that from a Christian, do you object
>>>>when someone on your side does it?
>>>
>>>Pound sand, whiny bitchgoddess.
>>
>>And again you resort to insult as a substitute for argument. Are
>>you trolling? Are you a theist trying to make atheists look bad?
>
>Of course. Praise Jeebus.
I have not followed your posts so I don't know if you had
hypocrisy to the list but I hope you don't object when a theists
uses insult instead of argument. One of you is likely just
flattering the other.
Matt Silberstein
<jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>><jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>>>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>>>><jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>>>>>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Yet more unmarked snips.
>>>>
>>>>>>I wonder if you can find the term "omni" anywhere in the Bible.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, it's in the Apocrypha. It was Jesus' favorite magazine.
>>>>
>>>>IOW it is not there and you have no actual point.
>>>
>>>Jesus H. Christ Eatin' Hot Pockets, get a sense of humor willya?
>>
>>Yeah, I got the joke, such as it was. I also saw that it was used
>>as an attempt to avoid dealing the point. Let me make it as clear
>>as I can: you are making a major deal about a term "omni' that
>>does not appear in the religious works in question.
>
>Nope. I've said a dozen times that you're free to define the god(s) you
>worship in any way you choose. If you want a god that's all-powerful,
>that's fine. If you want a god that's just short enough of all-powerful
>to prevent this power from conflicting with other attributes, go for it.
>If you wanna define your god as a 900 foot-tall carrot or as a toupeed
>actor, that's fine with me too.
I was not aware that I had attempted, at any time, to define God.
>>Even a casual
>>reading of the Torah shows that God has various limitations.
>
>I'll trust you on it. I gave up long ago on trying to quantify the
>abilities given to various gods by various holy-books. It's like trying
>to figure out which fantasy authors prefer four-legged dragons and which
>prefer two-legged ones.
>
>>In
>>fact, I can't see how any entity could have any qualities and not
>>have limitations. If you want to make a real point about
>>limitations deal with what the text actually says.
>
>Why do you keep pointing me to somesuch holy book or other and demanding
>that I show you something in it?
Because you make comments on it. You don't want to read the book,
fine. But then don't make comments about it.
> The only text the original poster
>posted was a web-page that handwaved away the problems with omnipotence.
And I responded to the response to that. And both are silly:
omnipotence is irrelevant to anything meaningful.
>. . .ooh, I sense a sanctimonious soliloquy approaching. I will
>appropriately hum "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" as background music.
Hope you had fun.
>>But make a
>>choice: either you can try to beat up on the ignorant or not
>>knowledgeable. If the ignorant then you don't have to know much
>>about the topic. But you will also not make any substantiative
>>points. If the knowledgeable then you have to learn something
>>about the topic. Most of these questions have been explored. You
>>may well not find the answers fulfilling. That is fine, but
>>ignorance of the answers does not make them go away.
>
>[John waves his lighter in the air]
>
>WOOHOO!! NOW DO FREEBIRD!!!
I bet you get upset when theists do this.
Elroy Willis
> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Elroy Willis
>>> Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
>>>> What do you think of dishonesty?
>>> Intentional dishonesty is the pits.
>> Do you think that John's frequent unmarked snips, especially
>> where he uses them to avoid dealing with other's arguments, are
>> dishonest? Intentional?
> [John switches the EAC-issue painfield generator off "standby" and keys
> in the serial number corresponding to the biochip implanted in Elroy's
> right testicle]
> Go ahead Elroy. Answer the man.
I prefer not to answer.
Editor of EvilBible.com
"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:d34iqv8nakanlcqqh...@4ax.com...
> "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_...@Here.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
> >news:n1fgqvo61s3h5ng0b...@4ax.com...
> >> jke...@zoomnet.net (John Kelley) wrote:
> >> >John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
> >news:<07ofqvotr0vp5155s...@4ax.com>...
> >> >> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> >> >"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:kmhfqv4tqeq0jid9g...@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ahh, I see. So "all powerful" means "not really all powerful".
> >Thanks
> >> >> >> for that pointer there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
> >> >>
> >> >> Dunno why these folks keep having to water down the term
"omnipotence"
> >> >> to mean something less than omnipotence. It's not like it's a term
that
> >> >> actually applies to reality.
> >> >>
> >> >I guess you think that omnivores eat rocks,steel,and plutonium.
> >> >
> >> >Omnipotent-able to do anything that can be done.
> >> >Omnivorous-able to eat anything that can be eaten.
> >>
> >> my god anyway, so define him to have tits that squirt cheap liquor for
> >> all I care.
> >
> >Now that's my type of God! What should we call her? How about "Courtney
> >Love"? Christians are always saying that God is Love (with a capital
"L").
> >With all the drugs she takes it has to be a miracle she is still alive.
> >That's it! Courtney Love is really God! I've been saved!
>
> Can we find a god that's a bit less. . .skanky?
There is an Indian fertility god that has many tits. If these squirted
cheap liquor that would explain the fertility part. Everyone was getting
drunk and have sex without birth control.
John Hattan
>John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Elroy Willis
>>>> Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>>>> What do you think of dishonesty?
>
>>>> Intentional dishonesty is the pits.
>
>>> Do you think that John's frequent unmarked snips, especially
>>> where he uses them to avoid dealing with other's arguments, are
>>> dishonest? Intentional?
>
>> [John switches the EAC-issue painfield generator off "standby" and keys
>> in the serial number corresponding to the biochip implanted in Elroy's
>> right testicle]
>
>> Go ahead Elroy. Answer the man.
>
>I prefer not to answer.
[John returns the painfield generator to "standby"]
Any further questions, Matt?
John Hattan
Not the whole thing, certainly, but you jumped into this thread with
your own version of the omnipotence attribute.
>>>Even a casual
>>>reading of the Torah shows that God has various limitations.
>>
>>I'll trust you on it. I gave up long ago on trying to quantify the
>>abilities given to various gods by various holy-books. It's like trying
>>to figure out which fantasy authors prefer four-legged dragons and which
>>prefer two-legged ones.
>>
>>>In
>>>fact, I can't see how any entity could have any qualities and not
>>>have limitations. If you want to make a real point about
>>>limitations deal with what the text actually says.
>>
>>Why do you keep pointing me to somesuch holy book or other and demanding
>>that I show you something in it?
>
>Because you make comments on it. You don't want to read the book,
>fine. But then don't make comments about it.
Other than poking fun at the iron chariot verse, I don't recall doing
so. Is that what you're referring to?
>> The only text the original poster
>>posted was a web-page that handwaved away the problems with omnipotence.
>
>And I responded to the response to that. And both are silly:
>omnipotence is irrelevant to anything meaningful.
It's the subject of the thread, genius.
>>. . .ooh, I sense a sanctimonious soliloquy approaching. I will
>>appropriately hum "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" as background music.
>
>Hope you had fun.
>
>>>But make a
>>>choice: either you can try to beat up on the ignorant or not
>>>knowledgeable. If the ignorant then you don't have to know much
>>>about the topic. But you will also not make any substantiative
>>>points. If the knowledgeable then you have to learn something
>>>about the topic. Most of these questions have been explored. You
>>>may well not find the answers fulfilling. That is fine, but
>>>ignorance of the answers does not make them go away.
>>
>>[John waves his lighter in the air]
>>
>>WOOHOO!! NOW DO FREEBIRD!!!
>
>I bet you get upset when theists do this.
Nope. I give much better than I get.
Now, are you gonna do Freebird?
John Hattan
Do you have a chapter-n-verse in one of those holy books to back this
stuff up, or is this just your impression?
>>>>>In that religion those particular rules
>>>>>only apply to the members of that religion.
>>>>
>>>>Ditto for Christianity's statement that recognition of the Christian god
>>>>is required to avoid eternal punishment.
>>>
>>>Nope. Christianity claims those rules apply to all. (OK, some
>>>Christians will claim it applies to all who have heard of
>>>Christ.) As such, under their view, rejecting Christ will lead
>>>you to punishment. OTOH Christianity does not demand chastity.
>>>Christian Holy Order do (all AFAIK, but I could be wrong) require
>>>chastity. So you are not condemned for unchaste behavior if you
>>>are not a member of those orders. Do you understand the
>>>distinction?
>>
>>Not really. Why should the rules of some religion apply to me if I'm not
>>a practitioner of that religion?
>
>If God has made those rules and if God says they apply to all,
>then they apply to all. I don't know why that concept is hard for
>you to understand.
If Binky the 900-foot Carrot God made a rule and said it applied to all,
would it also apply to all?
>>>>>That does not mean
>>>>>all rules, not even all rules of that religion, only apply to
>>>>>members of the religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yet most Christians will insist I'll be punished for not believing in
>>>>>>their god. Weird.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is weird, ISTM, is your insistence that all theists have the
>>>>>same views. Or that their views are as simplistic as you assert.
>>>>
>>>>[John looks at his use of the word "most" in his previous statement]
>>>>
>>>>Uh huh.
>>>
>>>The most does not do a thing to modify my point. You are trying
>>>to apply your understanding of some Christian rules to other
>>>religions. And that application does not work.
>>
>>Apparently not. It apparently only applies to religions that you
>>yourself don't follow :)
>
>And what religions are those?
Never mind.
Hey, you called me a theist. Don't pretend that I'm alone in the insult
department here.
Elroy Willis
> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Elroy Willis
>> Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
>>> You did not learn the lesson, did you. You can use whatever name
>>> you want, but please stop trying to pretend you have some
>>> understanding of Judaism. Unless you are Jewish there is no
>>> chance that your turning on a light on Shabbat is offensive.
>>> Second, it is not offensive to God when you don't follow the
>>> rules about Shabbat. Please either stop writing about subjects
>>> you are ignorant of or learn about the topic.
>> I watched an interesting film yesterday called "Snow in August"
>> which was about a young Irish Catholic boy who made friends with a
>> Jewish rabbi, and the boy ended up making a golem come to life by
>> chanting the true name of god. He was saying Yah Haw Veh Hey
>> or something like that, over and over, and, TADA, the dirt golem came
>> to life and saved the day!
> Never saw the film. I doubt it is considered canon.
I don't know whether it was supposed to be supportive of Judaism
or it was making fun of it. The idea that someone can chant the name
of some god and make a golem come alive, or gain some other powers by
using the name, is just fiction or fantasy in my mind. Makes for some
good stories I suppose, but anyone who takes them seriously is living
in a fantasy world, imo.
I was disappointed that the catholic boy didn't say the name
backwards, so I could hear what it might sound like. That's how to
make the golem go away, apparently, according to Jewish mythology.
What does YHVH or YHWH sound like phonetically, backwards?
When speaking it backwards, is it done by separated syllables or
just all strung together, or like a tape recoding played backwards?
Elroy Willis
> All-powerful equates to ultimate power. If the universe is,
> as you say, unlimited then a property of it should be unlimited power.
> Its power should be infinite.
Do you imply "sentient" power when you speak of ultimate power?
Elroy Willis
> I wonder if you can find the term "omni" anywhere in the Bible.
I don't know for sure, but you can find it on the following diagram,
which reflects the Bible cosmology.
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/jpg/cosmology1.jpg
Notice the "omnium" in the lower right.
Elroy Willis
> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>>> Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>> Yet more unmarked snips.
>>>> I wonder if you can find the term "omni" anywhere in the Bible.
>>> Yeah, it's in the Apocrypha. It was Jesus' favorite magazine.
>> IOW it is not there and you have no actual point.
> Jesus H. Christ Eatin' Hot Pockets, get a sense of humor willya?
Perhaps you should've used a smiley or something?
John Hattan
That little sound-recorder that comes with Windows can reverse sounds.
Just record yourself saying it and reverse it.
Scott
"Elroy Willis" <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:ncrkqvcngm864fme1...@4ax.com...
> Scott <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > All-powerful equates to ultimate power. If the universe is,
> > as you say, unlimited then a property of it should be unlimited power.
> > Its power should be infinite.
>
> Do you imply "sentient" power when you speak of ultimate power?
No. Theologically, all-/unlimited/ultimate power is a quality of god's
creative nature.
Ok, I admit to baiting him since it doesn't look like he is going to answer.
If the universe is unlimited as he said, its power (it's ability to create
E=MC^2) is also unlimited. If he was right and the universe was unlimited,
it would emanate the same "all-powerful" creative nature that theologians
have traditionally ascribe to god. If he didn't change his pet definition
for all-powerful, 2+2 could equal 5 in nature and the universe could cancel
out its own entropy. I guess it could also create a rock so big the universe
itself couldn't contain it.
The only difference in his universe and his god idea is that one is sentient
and brings its creation about by will.
Scott
stoney
<matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom>, Message ID:
<083eqvkuc63ataddk...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from stoney
><sto...@the.net>:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:45:16 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom>, Message ID:
>><mtmcqv8t8k4vb361t...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
>>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John Hattan
>>><jo...@thecodezone.com>:
>>>
>>>>jke...@zoomnet.net (John Kelley) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.tektonics.org/rockon.htm
>>>>
>>>>Favorite part. . .
>>>>
>>>> -An all-powerful being can lift anything.
>>>> -The posed question is about object A.
>>>> -Object A is a rock that an all-powerful being cannot lift.
>>>> -Therefore, object A is a rock that cannot be lifted by a being
>>>> that can lift anything.
>>>>
>>>> The definition of object A is nonsensical; it is self-contradicting.
>>>> Such a rock does not exist. That's not enough: such a rock couldn't
>>>> exist, even in theory.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, the same logic could be applied to the god. . .
>>>>
>>>> -An all-powerful being can create anything.
>>>> -The posed question is about being B.
>>>> -Being B is a being that cannot create something.
>>>> -Therefore, being B is a being that can create anything but
>>>> cannot create something.
>>>>
>>>> The definition of being B is nonsensical; it is self-contradicting.
>>>> Such a being does not exist. That's not enough: such a being
>>>> couldn't exist, even in theory.
>>>>
>>>>So now we've got a self-contradicting being performing a nonsensical act
>>>>on a self-contradicting object. I'm just glad I've got an iron chariot
>>>>so that I can keep such a being at bay :)
>>>
>>>Wow, so we have shown that God is not "all-powerful". Powerful
>>>enough to create the Universe as a whim, maybe. But not
>>>all-powerful. BFD.
>>
>>Sorry, but no. If something can't handle primitive chariots on a level
>>plain regardless of the material they're built from, there''s no reason
>>to look at something much more difficult.
>
>What did the argument above have to do with primitive chariots?
I'm not sure if my reply hasn't hit my server yet or I missed reading
the post until now.
I'm surprised you ask the question, Matt, as the answer to your question
is there. The simple task at hand is to 'defeat primitive chariots.'
The fictional entity is defeated by the simple task. With that
established there's no reason to see if a much more difficult task can
be completed.
IOW, if someone can't do simple math there's no reason to present a
problem which charts the course of a satellite from earth to orbit Mars
at 'x' amount of distance from it.
stoney
Message ID: <0jfjqvsbknt4ti151...@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
:)))))))))))))
Continue....
John Hattan
Matt Silberstein
Yes, I do have such references.
>>>>>>In that religion those particular rules
>>>>>>only apply to the members of that religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ditto for Christianity's statement that recognition of the Christian god
>>>>>is required to avoid eternal punishment.
>>>>
>>>>Nope. Christianity claims those rules apply to all. (OK, some
>>>>Christians will claim it applies to all who have heard of
>>>>Christ.) As such, under their view, rejecting Christ will lead
>>>>you to punishment. OTOH Christianity does not demand chastity.
>>>>Christian Holy Order do (all AFAIK, but I could be wrong) require
>>>>chastity. So you are not condemned for unchaste behavior if you
>>>>are not a member of those orders. Do you understand the
>>>>distinction?
>>>
>>>Not really. Why should the rules of some religion apply to me if I'm not
>>>a practitioner of that religion?
>>
>>If God has made those rules and if God says they apply to all,
>>then they apply to all. I don't know why that concept is hard for
>>you to understand.
>
>If Binky the 900-foot Carrot God made a rule and said it applied to all,
>would it also apply to all?
If there is a Binky the 900-foot Carrot God I suppose it would so
apply. And if Binky says the rule only applies to left-handed
people I suppose it would only apply to them. I am speculating
since I know nothing of the theology of the Binky religion. But,
then again, I have, until now, avoided commenting on that
religion.
No, I did not call you a theist. I speculated that given your
posts and given you claimed identification as an atheist perhaps
you are trying to make atheists look bad. I did this because you
made multiple unmarked snips, you substituted insult for
argument, and you have generally run from dealing with substance.
I often suspect people like Pastor Dave of trolling, deliberately
trying to make theists look bad and I wonder if you are in that
category as well.
Matt Silberstein
>Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Elroy Willis
>>> Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
>
><snip>
>
>>>> You did not learn the lesson, did you. You can use whatever name
>>>> you want, but please stop trying to pretend you have some
>>>> understanding of Judaism. Unless you are Jewish there is no
>>>> chance that your turning on a light on Shabbat is offensive.
>>>> Second, it is not offensive to God when you don't follow the
>>>> rules about Shabbat. Please either stop writing about subjects
>>>> you are ignorant of or learn about the topic.
>
>>> I watched an interesting film yesterday called "Snow in August"
>>> which was about a young Irish Catholic boy who made friends with a
>>> Jewish rabbi, and the boy ended up making a golem come to life by
>>> chanting the true name of god. He was saying Yah Haw Veh Hey
>>> or something like that, over and over, and, TADA, the dirt golem came
>>> to life and saved the day!
>
>> Never saw the film. I doubt it is considered canon.
>
>I don't know whether it was supposed to be supportive of Judaism
>or it was making fun of it. The idea that someone can chant the name
>of some god and make a golem come alive, or gain some other powers by
>using the name, is just fiction or fantasy in my mind. Makes for some
>good stories I suppose, but anyone who takes them seriously is living
>in a fantasy world, imo.
That notion comes from a story from a few hundred years ago from
Poland. It is not "believed" by anyone AFAIK. The original
explores some interesting moral questions, but it has been
distorted as it has traveled through the culture. Almost
certainly the Golem story influenced both Mary Shelly and Karl
Capek.
>I was disappointed that the catholic boy didn't say the name
>backwards, so I could hear what it might sound like. That's how to
>make the golem go away, apparently, according to Jewish mythology.
It is wrong to call this Jewish mythology, it is just a story. It
has not direct connection to any Jewish religious books. (And in
the original the name was erased from the forehead.) The notion
that names are powerful things and that the name of God is
powerful is an ancient Jewish notion, but it is not as simply as
portrayed in the story.
>What does YHVH or YHWH sound like phonetically, backwards?
We don't know. Nor is it the name of God either, it is a
placeholder for the name which was not written down and is now
forgotten.
>When speaking it backwards, is it done by separated syllables or
>just all strung together, or like a tape recoding played backwards?
Again, the backwards part is from that particular movie, not from
anywhere in Jewish lore.