If God exists, can he?

[Trance Gemini]

Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.

Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
such as strength or intelligence?

--

"If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land

[Max]

Oh goodie.....let me answer this one like a nutter would.

No, because God is the top dog. It's like an army you see TG.

A general can promote anyone of lesser rank to a rank below that of
the generals' but he can't promote himself, cause he's the top dog.

So man can certainly make something stronger & possibly more
intelligent than him/herself, but that can only happen because God
provided for this.

However, God is also a growing force [geez I'm good at this] and in
his wisdom he foresees all beyond what we can know. So if we can't
know, we can't determine the infinite knowledge and wisdom of his
knowing and heavenly knowledge.

Oh dear.......I'm feeling feint. I need a little lie down now.

:)

[TLC]

If a god is omnipotent, can this god make a rock so big he can't lift
it?

If god can't make the rock he is not omnipotent. Yet, if god can
makes a rock so big he can't lift it, he is no longer omnipotent.

> > Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Max]

He did and can TLC.

God made the universe. Is that not a big enough rock to lift, given
that He is bigger and stronger than anything anywhere? If he made a
rcok bigger than he could lift, he'd just get bigger.............like
the universe............infinate

[I'd make a good nutter]

[love&peace]

On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?

God is spirit, He has no defined form, yet coarser forms issue from
Him into physical forms that can be described as powerful; but not as
powerful as Him, relatively. The robots can be coarsely stronger than
the human body but not in any way as intelligent as the human minds
that conceived and constructed them. Therefore, it is proper to
conclude that robots are not as powerful as humans. So it is with God
and His creation.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

Oh goodie.....let me answer this one like a nutter would.

No, because God is the top dog. It's like an army you see TG.

A general can promote anyone of lesser rank to a rank below that of
the generals' but he can't promote himself, cause he's the top dog.

So man can certainly make something stronger & possibly more
intelligent than him/herself, but that can only happen because God
provided for this.

However, God is also a growing force [geez I'm good at this] and in
his wisdom he foresees all beyond what we can know. So if we can't
know, we can't determine the infinite knowledge and wisdom of his
knowing and heavenly knowledge.

Oh dear.......I'm feeling feint. I need a little lie down now.

:)

It's 7:20AM and I need a good stiff drink after reading that. Haha.

Oh well. Coffee will have to do....

Nope. Drinking the coffee didn't help.

-- 

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:08 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

If a god is omnipotent, can this god make a rock so big he can't lift
it?

If god can't make the rock he is not omnipotent.    Yet, if god can
makes a rock so big he can't lift it, he is no longer omnipotent.

And therein lies the logical contradiction.

[lawrey]

Trance,

What a question?

> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.

Accepted and correct.

> Can God create something far more powerful than him in
> any respect, such as strength or intelligence?

As an atheist, the only answer possible is that the question
reqiures some knowledge of something you refer to as god.

Since no such thing is known to exist except in the minds
of those who believe in the superstitious and supernatural;
Then there can be no answer that would make sense to
the more rational mind, therefore logically it must surely
follow that the answer is: A lemon, or school comes out
early on Fridays.

If however you had slotted in that mighty word "IF" it
were possible that a god with all the powers associated
with the mythological god of the bible, could "create
something far more powerful than it in any respect,

such as strength or intelligence?"

The logical answer must only be a resounding NO!
For obvious reasons: An all powerful god would already
have all the power and intelligence for any eventuality.

Why would it wish to create a rival, more powerful?

Humans do not consider robots as rivals and have
more intelligence than unknown godthings, when
devising robots that are not malign or malicious.



--

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:15 AM, love&peace <willi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?

God is spirit, He has no defined form, yet coarser forms issue from
Him into physical forms that can be described as powerful; but not as
powerful as Him, relatively.  The robots can be coarsely stronger than
the human body but not in any way as intelligent as the human minds
that conceived and constructed them. Therefore, it is proper to
conclude that robots are not as powerful as humans. So it is with God
and His creation.

Nice Christian evasion but still waiting for an answer to the question :-D

Example: Can God create a bigger spirit than himself?

[love&peace]

On Oct 13, 4:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:15 AM, love&peace <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> > > Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> > > such as strength or intelligence?
>
> > God is spirit, He has no defined form, yet coarser forms issue from
> > Him into physical forms that can be described as powerful; but not as
> > powerful as Him, relatively.  The robots can be coarsely stronger than
> > the human body but not in any way as intelligent as the human minds
> > that conceived and constructed them. Therefore, it is proper to
> > conclude that robots are not as powerful as humans. So it is with God
> > and His creation.
>
> Nice Christian evasion but still waiting for an answer to the question :-D
>
> Example: Can God create a bigger spirit than himself?

Can infinity create another infinity? Sometimes questions answer
questions

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:10 AM, love&peace <willi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 4:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:15 AM, love&peace <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> > > Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> > > such as strength or intelligence?
>
> > God is spirit, He has no defined form, yet coarser forms issue from
> > Him into physical forms that can be described as powerful; but not as
> > powerful as Him, relatively.  The robots can be coarsely stronger than
> > the human body but not in any way as intelligent as the human minds
> > that conceived and constructed them. Therefore, it is proper to
> > conclude that robots are not as powerful as humans. So it is with God
> > and His creation.
>
> Nice Christian evasion but still waiting for an answer to the question :-D
>
> Example: Can God create a bigger spirit than himself?

Can infinity create another infinity? Sometimes questions answer
questions

I don't know. Can it? 

I'm asking you since you are the one who holds the belief in God. 

(Note to those who are unaware that the capitalization of God on AvC refers to the Abrahamic God)

--

[love&peace]

On Oct 13, 5:27 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:10 AM, love&peace <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 4:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:15 AM, love&peace <williamu...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> > > > > Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> > > > > such as strength or intelligence?
>
> > > > God is spirit, He has no defined form, yet coarser forms issue from
> > > > Him into physical forms that can be described as powerful; but not as
> > > > powerful as Him, relatively.  The robots can be coarsely stronger than
> > > > the human body but not in any way as intelligent as the human minds
> > > > that conceived and constructed them. Therefore, it is proper to
> > > > conclude that robots are not as powerful as humans. So it is with God
> > > > and His creation.
>
> > > Nice Christian evasion but still waiting for an answer to the question
> > :-D
>
> > > Example: Can God create a bigger spirit than himself?
>
> > Can infinity create another infinity? Sometimes questions answer
> > questions
>
> I don't know. Can it?
> I'm asking you since you are the one who holds the belief in God.

I don't know of another infinity. The one I know of, God, is active in
all spheres, and He satisfies the needs of the entire creation. He
does not need another superior. Lol !

[Trance Gemini]

But that's not the question. The question is can he create something superior to himself?

[dali_70]

On Oct 13, 6:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?

Imaginary entities aren't capable of doing anything.

[love&peace]

On Oct 13, 6:26 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But that's not the question. The question is *can *he create something
> superior to himself?

He can't.,, then?

[Trance Gemini]

Imaginary entities can create anything your imagination wants them to create including logical contradictions ;-D

[Trance Gemini]

If he can't, he's not omnipotent and doesn't exist.

If he can, he's a logical contradiction that can't exist.

[love&peace]

On Oct 13, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Existence has meaning, therefore, God can't violate His laws which are
flawless, and beyond which no possibility exists.

> If he can, he's a logical contradiction that can't exist.

The contradictions are human judgment errors. A voluminous book can
be written on that.

[OldMan]

On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?

He has created people, who are powerful enough to deny his existence
and resist his will.

Your question is really comparing apples with oranges. Yes, man has
assembled things that are superior in some form to himself, whether
faster, stronger or more resistant to wear and tear. But that is
different than what the Christian God is claimed to do in creating
what is seen out of what is unseen. Can man make anything out of
nothing?

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of a sandbox, especially
as a web developer. The sandbox provides limits on what a downloaded
program segment can do on a client PC. The universe is in some
respects like a sandbox that puts bounds (the natural laws) on what
can take place within the sandbox. But what is possible outside the
sandbox (in the supernatural realm)? I don't know what may or may not
be possible there.

[Timbo]

On Oct 13, 9:26 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But that's not the question. The question is *can *he create something
> superior to himself?

The answer is yes, if he always becomes what he created.

[lawrey]

Hello OldMan,

Great to see you are still among us and welcome!
You brought a smile to an old wrinkly.

You are talking a lot of wollup though.

Said the pieman to simple Simon:
"Show me first your penny!"

I'll finish it for you just in-case you don't yet get the point.

Said simple Simon to the pieman: "Indeed I have not any!"

Enough said. ;))

[OldMan]

On Oct 13, 9:12 am, lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Hello OldMan,
>
> Great to see you are still among us and welcome!
> You brought a smile to an old wrinkly.

:)

>
> You are talking a lot of wollup though.
>
> Said the pieman to simple Simon:
> "Show me first your penny!"
>
> I'll finish it for you just in-case you don't yet get the point.
>
> Said simple Simon to the pieman: "Indeed I have not any!"
>
> Enough said. ;))

If you say so, although I'm not sure what it was you said.

Ed Jarrett (OldMan)
http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Trance Gemini]

Christians attribute existence to God and omnipotence (power without limitation - all powerful)

If he can't do something, natural laws or not, whether he created them or not, he isn't omnipotent and doesn't exist.

Unless you're arguing that after he creates everything as an all powerful god he then becomes limited and is no longer omnipotent.

Is that what you're claiming?

If so, please provide some scriptural support for that.

 

> If he can, he's a logical contradiction that can't exist.

The contradictions are human judgment errors. A  voluminous book can
be written on that.

A logical contradiction isn't an error. It's based on human reason.

Reason which Christians claim support the existence claims they make of God.

(Aquinas and others)

[Trance Gemini]

Then it wouldn't be superior to himself...

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OldMan <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?

He has created people, who are powerful enough to deny his existence
and resist his will.

Does that make us more powerful than God?

 

Your question is really comparing apples with oranges.  Yes, man has
assembled things that are superior in some form to himself, whether
faster, stronger or more resistant to wear and tear.  But that is
different than what the Christian God is claimed to do in creating
what is seen out of what is unseen.  Can man make anything out of
nothing?

I agree with the apples and oranges comment. However, it's irrelevant to the question so ....

 

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of a sandbox, especially
as a web developer.

No doubt.

 

 The sandbox provides limits on what a downloaded
program segment can do on a client PC.  The universe is in some
respects like a sandbox that puts bounds (the natural laws) on what
can take place within the sandbox.  But what is possible outside the
sandbox (in the supernatural realm)?  I don't know what may or may not
be possible there.

Fair enough, not knowing given the presumption is a reasonable answer.

However, if there's an "inside" and an "outside" and God interacts with the "inside" and is omnipotent, the question can still apply.

So, this is just a more sophisticated evasion than L&Ps. :-D.

[Ed Jarrett]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OldMan <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?

He has created people, who are powerful enough to deny his existence
and resist his will.

Does that make us more powerful than God?

Would it not appear that way, at least in a limited way; which was really all your question addressed.

 

 

Your question is really comparing apples with oranges.  Yes, man has
assembled things that are superior in some form to himself, whether
faster, stronger or more resistant to wear and tear.  But that is
different than what the Christian God is claimed to do in creating
what is seen out of what is unseen.  Can man make anything out of
nothing?

I agree with the apples and oranges comment. However, it's irrelevant to the question so ....

I don't believe so, but ...

 

 

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of a sandbox, especially
as a web developer.

No doubt.

 

 The sandbox provides limits on what a downloaded
program segment can do on a client PC.  The universe is in some
respects like a sandbox that puts bounds (the natural laws) on what
can take place within the sandbox.  But what is possible outside the
sandbox (in the supernatural realm)?  I don't know what may or may not
be possible there.

Fair enough, not knowing given the presumption is a reasonable answer.

However, if there's an "inside" and an "outside" and God interacts with the "inside" and is omnipotent, the question can still apply.

So, this is just a more sophisticated evasion than L&Ps. :-D.

If I was trying to evade, wouldn't be easier to just not answer in the first place?

Trance is an almighty programmer.  Is it possible for her to write a piece of code that she cannot read?

Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OldMan <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?

He has created people, who are powerful enough to deny his existence
and resist his will.

Does that make us more powerful than God?

Would it not appear that way, at least in a limited way; which was really all your question addressed.

How would exercising the free will that God gave us, make us more powerful than God?

And if that were true, that would mean that God wasn't omnipotent because we would be more powerful.

Therefore God doesn't exist.

 

 

 

Your question is really comparing apples with oranges.  Yes, man has
assembled things that are superior in some form to himself, whether
faster, stronger or more resistant to wear and tear.  But that is
different than what the Christian God is claimed to do in creating
what is seen out of what is unseen.  Can man make anything out of
nothing?

I agree with the apples and oranges comment. However, it's irrelevant to the question so ....

I don't believe so, but ...

How would it be relevant to the question? Other than it's not a good comparison given the claims regarding God...

 

 

 

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of a sandbox, especially
as a web developer.

No doubt.

 

 The sandbox provides limits on what a downloaded
program segment can do on a client PC.  The universe is in some
respects like a sandbox that puts bounds (the natural laws) on what
can take place within the sandbox.  But what is possible outside the
sandbox (in the supernatural realm)?  I don't know what may or may not
be possible there.

Fair enough, not knowing given the presumption is a reasonable answer.

However, if there's an "inside" and an "outside" and God interacts with the "inside" and is omnipotent, the question can still apply.

So, this is just a more sophisticated evasion than L&Ps. :-D.

If I was trying to evade, wouldn't be easier to just not answer in the first place?

You would need to explain the response in the context of "inside". Unless you don't believe that God interacts with the "inside", in which case, the response is adequate.

 

Trance is an almighty programmer.  Is it possible for her to write a piece of code that she cannot read?

What was that you said about apples and oranges.... Lol.

[thea]

On Oct 13, 10:04 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OldMan <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> > > Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> > > such as strength or intelligence?
>
> > He has created people, who are powerful enough to deny his existence
> > and resist his will.
>
> Does that make us more powerful than God?

We are not more powerful than God Almighty, however, we are more
powerful
than Satan when we do something in the Name of Jesus.

>
>
>
> > Your question is really comparing apples with oranges.  Yes, man has
> > assembled things that are superior in some form to himself, whether
> > faster, stronger or more resistant to wear and tear.  But that is
> > different than what the Christian God is claimed to do in creating
> > what is seen out of what is unseen.  Can man make anything out of
> > nothing?
>
> I agree with the apples and oranges comment. However, it's irrelevant to the
> question so ....
>

I remember the story of the scientist that tells God that he can do
everything
God can do, including making man.
So God tells the scientist to go ahead
The scientist reaches down and picks up a clod of mud.
And God says, *No, No, No -- go get your own mud.*

>
>
> > I am sure you are familiar with the concept of a sandbox, especially
> > as a web developer.
>
> No doubt.
>
> >  The sandbox provides limits on what a downloaded
> > program segment can do on a client PC.  The universe is in some
> > respects like a sandbox that puts bounds (the natural laws) on what
> > can take place within the sandbox.  But what is possible outside the
> > sandbox (in the supernatural realm)?  I don't know what may or may not
> > be possible there.
>
> Fair enough, not knowing given the presumption is a reasonable answer.
>

Miracles are a fact of life, as you breath. So, you are living in a
supernatural realm.

> However, if there's an "inside" and an "outside" and God interacts with the
> "inside" and is omnipotent, the question can still apply.
>
> So, this is just a more sophisticated evasion than L&Ps. :-D.
>
> --

oh yeah.

[Answer_42]

On Oct 13, 11:44 am, OldMan <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> > Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> > such as strength or intelligence?
>
> He has created people, who are powerful enough to deny his existence
> and resist his will.

Really? He does not sound very omnipotent now, does he?

But in fact, what you actually mean is that this god of yours
allegedly created humans who have the ability (not the "power") to
disbelieve in that alleged creator. We can do that because this
creator wants us to be able to do that, it says nothing about
"power"...

[Walt]

I think one reasonable response is that the question is ill-formed.
If God is immeasurable or infinitely able/powerful, it's not clear
what it even means to say something is more able/powerful.

God in a sense limited his power (according to the Abrahamic
religions) by creating beings with free will. But I think it's
implied he could take away free will if he choose. Maybe a more well-
formed quandary is whether God can irrevocably limit himself. BUT, an
infinitely capable God must transcend time, so it's probably ill
formed to speak of God limiting his power and THEN not being able to
unlimit it.

On Oct 13, 6:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?
>

> --

[Joe]

On Oct 13, 9:26 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But that's not the question. The question is *can *he create something
> superior to himself?
>

Yes. He created His Mother, and He was (and is) obedient to her.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I think one reasonable response is that the question is ill-formed.
If God is immeasurable or infinitely able/powerful, it's not clear
what it even means to say something is more able/powerful.

God in a sense limited his power (according to the Abrahamic
religions) by creating beings with free will.  But I think it's
implied he could take away free will if he choose.  Maybe a more well-
formed quandary is whether God can irrevocably limit himself.  BUT, an
infinitely capable God must transcend time, so it's probably ill
formed to speak of God limiting his power and THEN not being able to
unlimit it.

And therein lies the logical contradiction which demonstrates that such a God cannot exist.

It must be capable of limiting itself but as soon as it does it is no longer omnipotent.

 

On Oct 13, 6:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?
>
> --
>
> "If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it.
> Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.
>
> Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Ed Jarrett]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OldMan <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?

He has created people, who are powerful enough to deny his existence
and resist his will.

Does that make us more powerful than God?

Would it not appear that way, at least in a limited way; which was really all your question addressed.

How would exercising the free will that God gave us, make us more powerful than God?

If he gives us the ability to resist him, has he not granted us power in that area?

 

And if that were true, that would mean that God wasn't omnipotent because we would be more powerful.

Therefore God doesn't exist.

Even if God were not omnipotent according to your definition, that would not make him disappear.

 

 

 

 

Your question is really comparing apples with oranges.  Yes, man has
assembled things that are superior in some form to himself, whether
faster, stronger or more resistant to wear and tear.  But that is
different than what the Christian God is claimed to do in creating
what is seen out of what is unseen.  Can man make anything out of
nothing?

I agree with the apples and oranges comment. However, it's irrelevant to the question so ....

I don't believe so, but ...

How would it be relevant to the question? Other than it's not a good comparison given the claims regarding God...

 

 

 

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of a sandbox, especially
as a web developer.

No doubt.

 

 The sandbox provides limits on what a downloaded
program segment can do on a client PC.  The universe is in some
respects like a sandbox that puts bounds (the natural laws) on what
can take place within the sandbox.  But what is possible outside the
sandbox (in the supernatural realm)?  I don't know what may or may not
be possible there.

Fair enough, not knowing given the presumption is a reasonable answer.

However, if there's an "inside" and an "outside" and God interacts with the "inside" and is omnipotent, the question can still apply.

So, this is just a more sophisticated evasion than L&Ps. :-D.

If I was trying to evade, wouldn't be easier to just not answer in the first place?

You would need to explain the response in the context of "inside". Unless you don't believe that God interacts with the "inside", in which case, the response is adequate.

The intent of the comparison was more concerned with the unknowability of what lies to the outside.

 

 

Trance is an almighty programmer.  Is it possible for her to write a piece of code that she cannot read?

What was that you said about apples and oranges.... Lol.

So who's trying to evade now?  Just humor me.

 

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OldMan <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?

He has created people, who are powerful enough to deny his existence
and resist his will.

Does that make us more powerful than God?

Would it not appear that way, at least in a limited way; which was really all your question addressed.

How would exercising the free will that God gave us, make us more powerful than God?

If he gives us the ability to resist him, has he not granted us power in that area?

Having power doesn't mean that we're more powerful.

 

 

And if that were true, that would mean that God wasn't omnipotent because we would be more powerful.

Therefore God doesn't exist.

Even if God were not omnipotent according to your definition, that would not make him disappear.

It would mean that the concept of God that Christians have can't exist.

 

 

 

 

Your question is really comparing apples with oranges.  Yes, man has
assembled things that are superior in some form to himself, whether
faster, stronger or more resistant to wear and tear.  But that is
different than what the Christian God is claimed to do in creating
what is seen out of what is unseen.  Can man make anything out of
nothing?

I agree with the apples and oranges comment. However, it's irrelevant to the question so ....

I don't believe so, but ...

How would it be relevant to the question? Other than it's not a good comparison given the claims regarding God...

 

 

 

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of a sandbox, especially
as a web developer.

No doubt.

 

 The sandbox provides limits on what a downloaded
program segment can do on a client PC.  The universe is in some
respects like a sandbox that puts bounds (the natural laws) on what
can take place within the sandbox.  But what is possible outside the
sandbox (in the supernatural realm)?  I don't know what may or may not
be possible there.

Fair enough, not knowing given the presumption is a reasonable answer.

However, if there's an "inside" and an "outside" and God interacts with the "inside" and is omnipotent, the question can still apply.

So, this is just a more sophisticated evasion than L&Ps. :-D.

If I was trying to evade, wouldn't be easier to just not answer in the first place?

You would need to explain the response in the context of "inside". Unless you don't believe that God interacts with the "inside", in which case, the response is adequate.

The intent of the comparison was more concerned with the unknowability of what lies to the outside.

No doubt. But the question can apply to "inside" unless you don't believe (like most Christians do) that God interacts directly with humanity.

So, the question can still be answered.

Just to clarify one thing since I'm not sure people are getting it.

Human beings can create things that are *more* powerful than we are.

Can God create things that are *more* powerful than he is? (In your case, "inside" the universe).

 

 

 

Trance is an almighty programmer.  Is it possible for her to write a piece of code that she cannot read?

What was that you said about apples and oranges.... Lol.

So who's trying to evade now?  Just humor me.

I'm not a god/dess.

 

 

Ed Jarrett (OldMan)

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Ed Jarrett]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OldMan <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?

He has created people, who are powerful enough to deny his existence
and resist his will.

Does that make us more powerful than God?

Would it not appear that way, at least in a limited way; which was really all your question addressed.

How would exercising the free will that God gave us, make us more powerful than God?

If he gives us the ability to resist him, has he not granted us power in that area?

Having power doesn't mean that we're more powerful.

This was more tongue in cheek than anything else and seems to be going amok now.  

 

 

 

And if that were true, that would mean that God wasn't omnipotent because we would be more powerful.

Therefore God doesn't exist.

Even if God were not omnipotent according to your definition, that would not make him disappear.

It would mean that the concept of God that Christians have can't exist.

I am a Christian, and I agree that within the universe God is omnipotent.  I have no idea about outside of it though.

Since your answer was necessary for me to continue my answer, and you choose not to answer (I suspect because you know where it is going) I see no purpose in continuing.

 

 

 

Ed Jarrett (OldMan)

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--

"If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Trance Gemini]

Okay. The answer is no, it's not possible for me to write a piece of code that I cannot read. However, I'm not a god/dess.

I could create a robot that is more powerful than me though.

(And I have no idea where you were going with this. Lol).

[Ed Jarrett]

So why can't you?  Maybe because it is a logical impossibility?  A question that does not really make sense.  It is the same as asking if God can make a rock to big for him to pick up.

 

I could create a robot that is more powerful than me though.

I seriously doubt you could 'create' a robot.  You might be able to make one though.

 

(And I have no idea where you were going with this. Lol).

 

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance is an almighty programmer.  Is it possible for her to write a piece of code that she cannot read?

What was that you said about apples and oranges.... Lol.

So who's trying to evade now?  Just humor me.

I'm not a god/dess.

Since your answer was necessary for me to continue my answer, and you choose not to answer (I suspect because you know where it is going) I see no purpose in continuing.

Okay. The answer is no, it's not possible for me to write a piece of code that I cannot read. However, I'm not a god/dess.

So why can't you?  Maybe because it is a logical impossibility?  A question that does not really make sense.  It is the same as asking if God can make a rock to big for him to pick up.

No doubt but the issue I'm raising is slightly different from the "rock too big" question.

 

 

I could create a robot that is more powerful than me though.

I seriously doubt you could 'create' a robot.  You might be able to make one though.

Sure I could create one. The materials to make a robot are all man-made so even if I'm not making all of the materials myself, I'm still creating the robot.

And I could create one that is more powerful than me. 

I'm not claiming to be Omnipotent so it isn't a logical impossibility. And that is the key point of the question.

If I was claiming to be Omnipotent then it becomes a logical impossibility.

[Ed Jarrett]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance is an almighty programmer.  Is it possible for her to write a piece of code that she cannot read?

What was that you said about apples and oranges.... Lol.

So who's trying to evade now?  Just humor me.

I'm not a god/dess.

Since your answer was necessary for me to continue my answer, and you choose not to answer (I suspect because you know where it is going) I see no purpose in continuing.

Okay. The answer is no, it's not possible for me to write a piece of code that I cannot read. However, I'm not a god/dess.

So why can't you?  Maybe because it is a logical impossibility?  A question that does not really make sense.  It is the same as asking if God can make a rock to big for him to pick up.

No doubt but the issue I'm raising is slightly different from the "rock too big" question.

How so?

 

 

 

I could create a robot that is more powerful than me though.

I seriously doubt you could 'create' a robot.  You might be able to make one though.

Sure I could create one. The materials to make a robot are all man-made so even if I'm not making all of the materials myself, I'm still creating the robot.

No.  You could assembly one.

 

And I could create one that is more powerful than me. 

I'm not claiming to be Omnipotent so it isn't a logical impossibility. And that is the key point of the question.

If I was claiming to be Omnipotent then it becomes a logical impossibility.

 

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance is an almighty programmer.  Is it possible for her to write a piece of code that she cannot read?

What was that you said about apples and oranges.... Lol.

So who's trying to evade now?  Just humor me.

I'm not a god/dess.

Since your answer was necessary for me to continue my answer, and you choose not to answer (I suspect because you know where it is going) I see no purpose in continuing.

Okay. The answer is no, it's not possible for me to write a piece of code that I cannot read. However, I'm not a god/dess.

So why can't you?  Maybe because it is a logical impossibility?  A question that does not really make sense.  It is the same as asking if God can make a rock to big for him to pick up.

No doubt but the issue I'm raising is slightly different from the "rock too big" question.

How so?

 

 

 

I could create a robot that is more powerful than me though.

I seriously doubt you could 'create' a robot.  You might be able to make one though.

Sure I could create one. The materials to make a robot are all man-made so even if I'm not making all of the materials myself, I'm still creating the robot.

No.  You could assembly one.

How does that impact on the fact that it would be more powerful than me? That is the key point. Can God do that?

We could argue about whether it's created or assembled but that discussion would be missing the key point and I don't see that resolving it would have any impact on the key point.

-- 

[Ed Jarrett]

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance is an almighty programmer.  Is it possible for her to write a piece of code that she cannot read?

What was that you said about apples and oranges.... Lol.

So who's trying to evade now?  Just humor me.

I'm not a god/dess.

Since your answer was necessary for me to continue my answer, and you choose not to answer (I suspect because you know where it is going) I see no purpose in continuing.

Okay. The answer is no, it's not possible for me to write a piece of code that I cannot read. However, I'm not a god/dess.

So why can't you?  Maybe because it is a logical impossibility?  A question that does not really make sense.  It is the same as asking if God can make a rock to big for him to pick up.

No doubt but the issue I'm raising is slightly different from the "rock too big" question.

How so?

How so? 

It's based on the comparison.

Human beings = Can create robots which are more powerful than they are and are not Omnipotent.

God = Can he do the same, given his Omnipotence? 

[Ed Jarrett]

Hopefully I am not being overly dense, but I still don't see how your question is different than the big rock one.

Can God create a rock he can't lift?

Can God create something bigger (like a rock), stronger, smarter, faster, etc. that he can't lift, beat in an arm wrestling contest, out think, out run, etc.

 

Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Trance Gemini]

Not at all. The question was suggested to me by someone else and I may not be understanding it properly either.

 

Here is the explanation the person provided:

This is not the trick  question most are confusing it to be:
"Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it himself?"

This is simple.  I am asking you if God can do something than man can.
 Man can create something stronger than himself.  Like a robot.
Something much better at playing chess.  Like IBM's Watson.

Can God do the same?  Can he create something that is stronger than
him?  More intelligent than him?  If not, he cannot do what man can.

In the rock example, man cannot even create a rock, but the argument
is that God can create a rock.

Completely different example here. 

Can God create a rock he can't lift?

Can God create something bigger (like a rock), stronger, smarter, faster, etc. that he can't lift, beat in an arm wrestling contest, out think, out run, etc.

 

Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Joe]

God's knowledge and power are infinite. How do you make something
greater than infinity?

On Oct 13, 8:52 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ed Jarrett]

OK, I think maybe I better understand your question.

You are asking if God can be stronger than strong, faster than fast, test better than 100%.  And since God is the standard we (at least those of us who believe in him) use for omnipotence, can God be more powerful than all powerful?  And my response is, does the question really even make sense?  As humans we are limited in our strength, intelligence and other abilities.  So yes, there is room for us to grow in our abilities, including the production of tools (robots & computers) than extend our abilities.  But once you have reached omni status how could you possibly upgrade?  I believe the question is still a logical impossibility, just worded in a more crafty way.

 

[Alan Wostenberg]

Trance, God can create anything possible. A being more intelligent than Omniscience is a self-contradiction. God cannot create it for the same reason He cannot create a married bachelor. It would be more accurate to say it cannot be done, than to say God cannot do it.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance, God can create anything possible. A being more intelligent than Omniscience is a self-contradiction. God cannot create it for the same reason He cannot create a married bachelor. It would be more accurate to say it cannot be done, than to say God cannot do it.

Omnipotence requires that God be able to create anything. Not "anything possible". When you add the word "possible" you apply a limitation to God which eliminates Omnipotence and the existence of God.

[Trance Gemini]

It seem to me that God cannot be standard for Omnipotence if Omnipotence is attributed to God. That is, the standard has to be independent of God.

The standard is simply the definition of Omnipotence which states "all powerful".

 

 And my response is, does the question really even make sense?

It does if you establish an independent standard based on the definition of the word.

 

 As humans we are limited in our strength, intelligence and other abilities.  So yes, there is room for us to grow in our abilities, including the production of tools (robots & computers) than extend our abilities.

Agreed.

 

 But once you have reached omni status how could you possibly upgrade?

Isn't that the logical contradiction? OTOH Omnipotence means that you can do anything. OTOH if you can't upgrade you have a limitation.

IOW. Omnipotence itself is logically and realistically impossible.

 

 I believe the question is still a logical impossibility, just worded in a more crafty way.

 

Ed Jarrett (OldMan) 

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[TLC]

Evidently, the christian god is not omnipotent. The christians say
their god made man in his image, but he can't have sex with any one.

The christian god in the Jesus myth even had to use a form of In Vitro
Fertilization to get Mary pregnant. IVF, a method of assisted
reproduction, was used successfully for the first time in history by a
spirit!

Unlike the Greek gods, the christian god just can't get it up!



On Oct 14, 11:31 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[lawrey]

OldMan,

I didn't know you were OldMan, but then I don't know
a lot anyway.

Well boiled down in answer to the overal question my
response simply means. Before we discuss anything
show me a god.

The rhym goes:
"Let me taste your wares." (Simple Simon) = Theist
"Show me first your penny." (Pieman) = Atheist
"Indeed I have not any." (Simple Simon) = Theist

There is a god. = Theist
Show me. = Atheist
I cant, there is not one to show. = Theist.

Hope that is of some help.



On Oct 13, 5:22 pm, OldMan <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:12 am, lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello OldMan,
>
> > Great to see you are still among us and welcome!
> > You brought a smile to an old wrinkly.
>
> :)
>
>
>
> > You are talking a lot of wollup though.
>
> > Said the pieman to simple Simon:
> > "Show me first your penny!"
>
> > I'll finish it for you just in-case you don't yet get the point.
>
> > Said simple Simon to the pieman: "Indeed I have not any!"
>
> > Enough said. ;))
>
> If you say so, although I'm not sure what it was you said.
>
> Ed Jarrett (OldMan)http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Ed Jarrett]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:33 AM, lawrey <lawre...@btinternet.com> wrote:

OldMan,

I didn't know you were OldMan, but then I don't know
a lot anyway.

Well boiled down in answer to the overal question my
response simply means. Before we discuss anything
show me a god.

The rhym goes:
"Let me taste your wares." (Simple Simon) = Theist
"Show me first your penny." (Pieman)        =  Atheist
"Indeed I have not any."  (Simple Simon)    =  Theist

There is a god. = Theist
Show me.        = Atheist
I cant, there is not one to show. = Theist.

Cept that is not something a theist would say :)

 

Hope that is of some help.



On Oct 13, 5:22 pm, OldMan <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:12 am, lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello OldMan,
>
> > Great to see you are still among us and welcome!
> > You brought a smile to an old wrinkly.
>
> :)
>
>
>
> > You are talking a lot of wollup though.
>
> > Said the pieman to simple Simon:
> > "Show me first your penny!"
>
> > I'll finish it for you just in-case you don't yet get the point.
>
> > Said simple Simon to the pieman: "Indeed I have not any!"
>
> > Enough said. ;))
>
> If you say so, although I'm not sure what it was you said.
>
> Ed Jarrett (OldMan)http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Ed Jarrett]

OK, let's play your game.  Assume that God could create something more powerful than himself.  There is no requirement that he do so.  So until he did he would still be omnipotent.  There is a difference between potential and actuality.

 

 

 I believe the question is still a logical impossibility, just worded in a more crafty way.

 

[Trance Gemini]

Not if being omnipotent were (and apparently is) logically impossible (potential).

Last word is yours....

-- 

[Ed Jarrett]

It is logically impossible because you say it is?  How convenient!   And I notice you evaded my response again. :)

 

Last word is yours....

-- 

"If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Observer]

On Oct 13, 4:15 am, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> > Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> > such as strength or intelligence?
>

> God is spirit,

Observer

You who , rather stupidly , believe in the idea of a God and are
consumed by the ensuing superstitious filth extrapolated therefrom
are quick to use but an other meaningless, non concept, as a
definitive description of this imaginary monster.

Such goes with the territory of village idiots .

He has no defined form, yet coarser forms issue from
> Him into physical forms that can be described as powerful; but not as
> powerful as Him, relatively.  The robots can be coarsely stronger than
> the human body but not in any way as intelligent as the human minds
> that conceived and constructed them. Therefore, it is proper to
> conclude that robots are not as powerful as humans. So it is with God
> and His creation.

Observer

You insist that this meaningless idea is an actuality, but fail
miserably in supplying scientifically verifiable substantiating data ,
not only for the existence there of, but further, you are unable to
supply scientifically substantiating data substantiating any act of
such , in or on the universe.


You have aligned your life's actions in opposition to the needs of
humanity. Those needs being the necessity of universal investigation
into the actualities , within which we exist, and upon which we are
totally and irrefutably dependent.

To wit

The physical universe (including but not limited the segment within
which we experience time-space) it's components, it's inhabitants,the
interactions there-between and the consequences thereof.

Should we fail to to move on from our near infinite ignorance there of
we shall set the stage for our species to prematurely become extinct
as have 99.9999 percent of of all creatures ever to populate this
planet.

What then of your love and peace?

Poverty is the most insidious destroyer of all to which , you give*
mouth service* to support.


The most violence producing of all classifications of poverty is
**ignorance** whereby is manifest , starvation, deprivation of proper
medical care through applied science, insufficient clean water, and a
lack of universal abundance, without which no universal peace and
little love is possible.

The hideous, sadomasochistic, superstitious, misanthropic ,
extrapolations created by the uneducated and divisive ideologies of
savages can serve only to produce additional horrors.

Where the study of the physical universe as described above leads to
extensions of the quality and quantity of life.

Your substandard, model driven , opinions of actuality, are useless,
in providing for testable hypotheses which can and oft do lead to
accurate prognostications and the ability to manipulate what is actual
for the betterment of the human condition.

It is incumbent on ,anyone who actually cares for humanity, to select
*model driven* concepts of reality which lead to productivity and
eschews superstitious filth.

I have no hope that you can muster enough intellectual accumin to
grasp what is here-above proffered , as your self-imposed ignorance
has reached a state of virtual malevolence.

I therefor submit such for the intelligentsia whom might be
protected
the profound mental illness by which you are consumed.




Psychonomist

[Trance Gemini]

No. The definition of Omnipotent says it's logically impossible for something to be more than Omnipotent.

[Ed Jarrett]

Care to provide a reference for that definition.

And what does it have to do with my response?

 

 

Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Trance Gemini]

Sure.

om·nip·o·tent/ämˈnipətənt/

Adjective:	(of a deity) Having unlimited power; able to do anything.
Noun:	God.
Synonyms:	almighty - all-powerful

How can you have more power than unlimited power?

Therefore how can you assume that God can do something greater than what he can already do?

You can't.

The standard for Omnipotence is determined by the definition "all powerful" not an essentially baseless claim that God is the standard of Omnipotence. God can't be the standard because Omnipotence is simply an attribute assigned to God. Omnipotence has to have a standard independent of that which it's attributed to.

 An Omnipotent entity (any entity including God) is a logical impossibility because it can't create something greater than itself because it's attribute is that it's all powerful.

If you think it can, then please provide an example.

And what does it have to do with my response?

Unless I misunderstood your response it's a directly reply to your points.

 

 

 

Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Ed Jarrett]

This does not say that it is logically impossible for something to be more than omnipotent.  So I will await further for that definition.

 

How can you have more power than unlimited power?

You can't.

 

Therefore how can you assume that God can do something greater than what he can already do?

You can't.

The standard for Omnipotence is determined by the definition "all powerful" not an essentially baseless claim that God is the standard of Omnipotence. God can't be the standard because Omnipotence is simply an attribute assigned to God. Omnipotence has to have a standard independent of that which it's attributed to.

 An Omnipotent entity (any entity including God) is a logical impossibility because it can't create something greater than itself because it's attribute is that it's all powerful.

If you think it can, then please provide an example.

- God is omnipotent, able to do anything, including produce something more powerful than himself.

- Until he actually does that, it is only a potential and he is still more powerful than anything in existence.

- Should he actually perform that action, he would no longer be omnipotent. 

I believe you are confusing potential with actual action.

 

And what does it have to do with my response?

Unless I misunderstood your response it's a directly reply to your points.

Not that I can tell.

 

 

[Trance Gemini]

Of course it does. There isn't anything more than unlimited power.

 

 

How can you have more power than unlimited power?

You can't.

Exactly. This makes it logically impossible for something to be more than omnipotent.

 

 

Therefore how can you assume that God can do something greater than what he can already do?

You can't.

The standard for Omnipotence is determined by the definition "all powerful" not an essentially baseless claim that God is the standard of Omnipotence. God can't be the standard because Omnipotence is simply an attribute assigned to God. Omnipotence has to have a standard independent of that which it's attributed to.

 An Omnipotent entity (any entity including God) is a logical impossibility because it can't create something greater than itself because it's attribute is that it's all powerful.

If you think it can, then please provide an example.

- God is omnipotent, able to do anything, including produce something more powerful than himself.

Please demonstrate how it's logically possible for an entity with unlimited power to create something that has more power than unlimited power.

 

- Until he actually does that, it is only a potential and he is still more powerful than anything in existence. 

- Should he actually perform that action, he would no longer be omnipotent. 

Then this God can't exist.

I believe you are confusing potential with actual action.

I think you're using the red herring of potential vs actual to plug this square peg into a round hole. Lol.

[Joe]

On Oct 14, 4:32 pm, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com

> > *om·nip·o·tent*/ämˈnipətənt/

> >  Adjective: (of a deity) Having unlimited power; able to do anything.
> > Noun: God. Synonyms:
> > almighty - all-powerful
>
> This does not say that it is logically impossible for something to be more
> than omnipotent.  So I will await further for that definition.
>

Disingenuous, Ed. You yourself provided the answer, just below.

> > How can you have more power than unlimited power?
>
> You can't.
>

"Can't" implies the impossibility of the thing in question. Thus if
you can't have more power than unlimited power, (admitted by you just
above) it is, by that token, impossible for something to be more than
omnipotent.

I think you went down the wrong road, here, and I think you started
down that road when you said to Trance, "O.K., let's play your game."

I think the solution lies in the recognition that impossibilities are
not real. This is not to say that there is nothing logically
impossible, but specifically, if something is logically impossible, it
cannot at the same time be a subject of serious consideration. Thus,

"Round square,"
"Rock so big an omnipotent being can't move it," and
"Being more powerful than an omnipotent being,"

are all logical impossibilities, which is to say, there is no reality
to them, either conceptually, potentially, or (of course) actually.

It is not that God could create a being more powerful than Himself,
but chooses not to. It is, rather, that "being more powerful than
God" is an incoherent word string, naming nothing at all. It is a
definition with a built-in contradiction, as are all three of the
phrases above. Incoherent word strings cannot name real things,
whether actual or potential, because incoherent word strings do not
specify concepts. To be a concept, a definition has to be at least
self-consistent, and these aren't.

It is a semantical game that Trance sucked you in to, and the only
winning move is, not to play.

>
>
> > Therefore how can you assume that God can do something greater than what he
> > can already do?
>
> > You can't.
>
> > The standard for Omnipotence is determined by the definition "all powerful"
> > not an essentially baseless claim that God is the standard of Omnipotence.
> > God can't be the standard because Omnipotence is simply an attribute
> > assigned to God. Omnipotence has to have a standard independent of that
> > which it's attributed to.
>
> >  An Omnipotent entity (any entity including God) is a logical impossibility
> > because it can't create something greater than itself because it's attribute
> > is that it's all powerful.
>
> > If you think it can, then please provide an example.
>
> - God is omnipotent, able to do anything, including produce something more
> powerful than himself.

No. Omnipotence does not include the ability to manifest self-
contradictory definitions, which are really only nonsense word
strings. And "more powerful than himself," where "himself" is God, is
such an incoherent word string.

> - Until he actually does that, it is only a potential and he is still more
> powerful than anything in existence.

You were correct that He is the standard of power. You said,
"standard of omnipotence," and when Trance balked, you fell apart, but
you could have averted her criticism by maintaining that God is the
standard, not so much of omnipotence, but of power --- all power being
relative to the infinite power of God.

However, God's power does not include, even potentially, producing
that which is absurdly defined. It is absurd to imagine that it
should.

> - Should he actually perform that action, he would no longer be omnipotent.
>
> I believe you are confusing potential with actual action.
>

I believe you are mistaking logical impossibility to be potential

[Ed Jarrett]

True.  But your definition does not say what you are claiming it does.  You are adding your own words to it.

 

 

 

How can you have more power than unlimited power?

You can't.

Exactly. This makes it logically impossible for something to be more than omnipotent.

Who claimed that anything was?

 

 

 

Therefore how can you assume that God can do something greater than what he can already do?

You can't.

The standard for Omnipotence is determined by the definition "all powerful" not an essentially baseless claim that God is the standard of Omnipotence. God can't be the standard because Omnipotence is simply an attribute assigned to God. Omnipotence has to have a standard independent of that which it's attributed to.

 An Omnipotent entity (any entity including God) is a logical impossibility because it can't create something greater than itself because it's attribute is that it's all powerful.

If you think it can, then please provide an example.

- God is omnipotent, able to do anything, including produce something more powerful than himself.

Please demonstrate how it's logically possible for an entity with unlimited power to create something that has more power than unlimited power.

I think I already have.

 

 

- Until he actually does that, it is only a potential and he is still more powerful than anything in existence. 

- Should he actually perform that action, he would no longer be omnipotent. 

Then this God can't exist.

For any valid reason?

 

I believe you are confusing potential with actual action.

I think you're using the red herring of potential vs actual to plug this square peg into a round hole. Lol.

Nice try, but no go.  I can;t decide if you just don't get it, or you don't want to. :)

 

[Ed Jarrett]

I appreciate your input Joe.  I am convinced that Trance is just playing word games but it is a pleasant diversion at the moment.

[Timbo]

On Oct 13, 12:52 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Timbo <thcus...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 9:26 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:58 AM, love&peace <williamu...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 13, 5:27 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:10 AM, love&peace <williamu...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 13, 4:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:15 AM, love&peace <

> > williamu...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 3:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> > > > > > > > > Can God create something far more powerful than him in any
> > > > respect,
> > > > > > > > > such as strength or intelligence?
>

> > > > > > > > God is spirit, He has no defined form, yet coarser forms issue

> > from
> > > > > > > > Him into physical forms that can be described as powerful; but
> > not
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > powerful as Him, relatively.  The robots can be coarsely
> > stronger
> > > > than
> > > > > > > > the human body but not in any way as intelligent as the human
> > minds
> > > > > > > > that conceived and constructed them. Therefore, it is proper to
> > > > > > > > conclude that robots are not as powerful as humans. So it is
> > with
> > > > God
> > > > > > > > and His creation.
>

> > > > > > > Nice Christian evasion but still waiting for an answer to the
> > > > question
> > > > > > :-D
>
> > > > > > > Example: Can God create a bigger spirit than himself?
>
> > > > > > Can infinity create another infinity? Sometimes questions answer
> > > > > > questions
>
> > > > > I don't know. Can it?
> > > > > I'm asking you since you are the one who holds the belief in God.
>
> > > > I don't know of another infinity. The one I know of, God, is active in
> > > > all spheres, and He satisfies the needs of the entire creation. He
> > > > does not need another superior. Lol !
>
> > > But that's not the question. The question is *can *he create something
> > > superior to himself?
>
> > The answer is yes, if he always becomes what he created.
>
> Then it wouldn't be superior to himself...

Without time then creation and self become one, therefor a constant. A
constant improvement without any observable event of change. Nothing
that is humanly imaginable. That is the whole point of omnipotent.
Stop trying to imagine what he is, fiddle with some beads and bless
his feet.

[Bill Bowden]

On Oct 13, 2:03 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to clarify one thing since I'm not sure people are getting it.
>
> Human beings can create things that are *more* powerful than we are.
>

Sure they can, but the things created have limited functions. A good
program can play a good game of chess, but it can't play checkers. A
simple car jack can lift a car off the ground which most people can't
do. There are exceptions.

-Bill

[LL]

On Oct 14, 9:02 am, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com
> >>>> > wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com

LL: You're right, there is no requirement that he do so. But if he is
truly omnipotent, he could create something too heavy for him to lift.
There is nothing he can't do, is there? If he wants to create
something too heavy for him to life, I see no reason he can't do it.
That's how omnipotence works. He can create something he can't lift
and he can then lift it if he so desires.

>
>
>
> >>  I believe the question is still a logical impossibility, just worded in a
> >> more crafty way.

LL: that's the problem with discussing omnipotence. It's not a factor
in the universe we know. I omnipotence exists it is beyond the
understanding of any human.

**********
>
> Ed Jarrett (OldMan)http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[LL]

LL: I agree with you in theory, Ed. Omnipotence is not existent in the
universe. If it exists, it's outside the universe, just as god is if
he exists. There is no use arguing over a concept that does not exist
in the universe we know. If it's outside the universe we know, we
can't know about it.

******

On Oct 14, 1:32 pm, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com

> > *om·nip·o·tent*/ämˈnipətənt/

[Joe]

Psshhh! Thought that was Chuck Norris!

>
>
> > >>  I believe the question is still a logical impossibility, just worded in a
> > >> more crafty way.
>
> LL: that's the problem with discussing omnipotence. It's not a factor
> in the universe we know. I omnipotence exists it is beyond the
> understanding of any human.
>

True, it is. But since that is true, how can you categorically
declare that an omnipotent being cannot come to visit us?

[Joe]

Gotcha ;) Thanks.

[Trance Gemini]

Not at all. I coming to a rational conclusion based on the definition.

Let's review.

We've agreed that we are talking about God's abilities within the confines of the existing Universe and not outside because we both agree that we can't make any determinations about outside relating to either Gods existence or his attributes.

Ed stated:

"You are asking if God can be stronger than strong, faster than fast, test better than 100%.  And since God is the standard we (at least those of us who believe in him) use for omnipotence, can God be more powerful than all powerful? It does if you establish an independent standard based on the definition of the word. As humans we are limited in our strength, intelligence and other abilities.  So yes, there is room for us to grow in our abilities, including the production of tools (robots & computers) than extend our abilities.

But once you have reached omni status how could you possibly upgrade?"

And,

"OK, let's play your game.  Assume that God could create something more powerful than himself.  There is no requirement that he do so.  So until he did he would still be omnipotent.  There is a difference between potential and actuality."

1. God is the standard you apply to omnipotence.

My response. 

1. God can't be the standard if the attribute is applied to God because the standard has to be independent of the entity it's applied to or it isn't objective, it's subjective.

Now, an argument can be made that all standards are essentially subjective but empirically if the standard is set independent of the entity it's more objective than it would be if one used a single entity to determine the standard. It makes it potentially applicable to anything not just God.

However, I can see why a believer would want it to apply only to God and therefore argue that God is the standard since the believer is presupposing that God exists and only God has that attribute. 

Such presuppositions don't form convincing arguments to non-believers because we aren't presupposing this.

We are applying the objective standard based on the definition of the word, Omnipotent: "all powerful", "infinite power".

In that context, God either has it or he doesn't.

If God has infinite power then he can't make anything more powerful than himself.

If God can't make anything more powerful than himself then he can't do something that Man can do.

Therefore God isn't Omnipotent.

Since Omnipotence is an attribute of God and God can't possibly be Omnipotent, God can't exist.

2. Since God is actually Omnipotent he has the potential to increase his Omnipotence.

This flies in the face of the definition of the term and is logically impossible.

Either God has infinite power or he doesn't. Infinite power can't become more infinite. It already is.

Therefore God can't become more than he already is.

<snipped>

 

Nice try, but no go.  I can;t decide if you just don't get it, or you don't want to. :)

Ditto. Lol.

[lawrey]

Ed,

Poor analogy I know, came from the top of my head.
Should have stayed there. But you get the drift.
Same old, same old.

On Oct 14, 4:23 pm, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ed Jarretthttp://aclayjar.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -

[lawrey]

Trance,

Ah! well, Yes, No, I don't want to appear to be interfering,
Just a polite word of caution..... It could be a case of
unlimited power within a range of powers, which could
then allow for more powers. Does that sound feasable
to you, or is it unwelcome? OK Sorry.

On Oct 14, 9:47 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com
> >>> > wrote:

>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com

> >> *om·nip·o·tent*/ämˈnipətənt/

> -- ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Alan Wostenberg]

Kitty, it would not be a limitation on Omnipotence unless you said "this thing is possible, and God can't do it". So what you are arguing is that married bachelors could possibly exist, but Omnipotence can't make them exist, so He's limited.

It is, as Aquinas puts it, more accurate to say it cannot be done, than God cannot do it. 

On Friday, October 14, 2011 4:26:40 AM UTC-6, Trance Gemini wrote:

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance, God can create anything possible. A being more intelligent than Omniscience is a self-contradiction. God cannot create it for the same reason He cannot create a married bachelor. It would be more accurate to say it cannot be done, than to say God cannot do it.

Omnipotence requires that God be able to create anything. Not "anything possible". When you add the word "possible" you apply a limitation to God which eliminates Omnipotence and the existence of God.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Kitty, it would not be a limitation on Omnipotence unless you said "this thing is possible, and God can't do it".

Humans can make things more powerful than themselves and God can't do it.

There's your limitation, Alan.

[LL]

LL. I never said an omnipotent being can't visit us. All I ever said
is that no one has ever presented a scrap of observable evidence that
it has happened. When you or anyone can do that all atheists will take
notice. We will weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion based on
the evidence. Until then we have nothing to go on but empty claims. A
claim is not evidence.

..........

[Timothy 1:4a]

If God is omnipotent, can He pronounce "a T-bone steak" "canned
spaghetti"?

Jesus: I'd like canned spaghetti.
[Waiter hands Him a can of spaghetti.]
Jesus: Nope, not what I asked for.
[Waiter hands Him two cans of spaghetti.]
Jesus: Nope, you're not getting it.

On Oct 13, 6:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?
>

[Joe]

On Oct 15, 12:28 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL.  I never said an omnipotent being can't visit us. All I ever said
> is that no one has ever presented a scrap of observable evidence that
> it has happened.

Aw, now you are being disingenuous. What about all the miracles?

>When you or anyone can do that all atheists will take
> notice. We will weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion based on
> the evidence. Until then we have nothing to go on but empty claims. A
> claim is not evidence.
>

A claim can point you to evidence, then it is up to you to research
the claim.

If you cared to, but you don't.

[Joe]

On Oct 15, 11:53 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Kitty, it would not be a limitation on Omnipotence unless you said "this
> > thing is possible, and God can't do it".
>
> Humans can make things more powerful than themselves and God can't do it.
>
> There's your limitation, Alan.
>

Not true. God can easily make things more powerful than humans, and
has made many such things. (Lions and tigers and bears! Oh my!)

When you compare humans making things more powerful than humans and
God making things more powerful than God, you are equivocating. You
are dishonestly pretending that "thing more powerful than itself"
refers to the same set of things, when it plainly doesn't. In the
case of things more powerful than man, man can create them and so can
God. In the case of things more powerful than God, God can't create
them and neither can man.

Not being able to create circular squares is not a limitation on
omnipotence, because the phrase "circular square" has no coherent
definition. It is equivalent to "mqjiblrgit." God can't create
mqjiblrgits, because the letter-string mqjiblrgit is not even a real
word. Letter-strings that are not words have no definition; they do
not name anything. They are nonsense.

Similarly, although the word "circular" has a definition and the word
"square" has a definition, the phrase "circular square" does not,
because things that are circular cannot be squares, and squares cannot
be circular.

Pretty sure Trance has me blocked, so this is for the benefit of
others, although it stretches the limits of my credulity to think
anyone could still take this objection seriously.

> --
>
> "If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it.
> Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.
>

Funny, that Trance has this as a sig, but when someone does exactly
that, she still doesn't accept the truth.

[Joe]

God could also make the waiter understand what he meant.

[Joe]

On Oct 15, 6:45 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Trance Gemini <

> >>>>>>> trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com

> >>>> *om·nip·o·tent*/ämˈnipətənt/

> therefore argue that God is the standard since the believer is *presupposing
> *that God exists and only God has that attribute.

>
> Such presuppositions don't form convincing arguments to non-believers
> because we aren't presupposing this.
>
> We are applying the objective standard based on the definition of the word,
> Omnipotent: "all powerful", "infinite power".
>
> In that context, God either has it or he doesn't.
>
> If God has infinite power then he can't make anything more powerful than
> himself.
> If God can't make anything more powerful than himself then he can't do

> something that Man *can *do.

Man can't make anything more powerful than God.

You are equivocating on the phrase, "more powerful than himself."
"Himself" here is a variable, not a constant. "More powerful than
man" and "more powerful than God" do not mean the same thing.

> Therefore God isn't Omnipotent.
> Since Omnipotence is an attribute of God and God can't possibly be
> Omnipotent, God can't exist.
>
> 2. Since God is actually Omnipotent he has the potential to increase his
> Omnipotence.
>
> This flies in the face of the definition of the term and is logically
> impossible.
>

I agree, this is contrary to the definition of God. God has nothing
potential, God is Pure Act.

> Either God has infinite power or he doesn't. Infinite power can't become
> more infinite. It already is.
> Therefore God can't become more than he already is.
>

That is the definition of Pure Act.

> <snipped>
>
> > Nice try, but no go.  I can;t decide if you just don't get it, or you don't
> > want to. :)
>
> Ditto. Lol.
>

The problem here is that Ed is discussing the matter seriously and
Trance is playing word games.

Actually, most of atheist arguments against God amount to word games.

[Ed Jarrett]

I am disappointed in you Trance, trying to sneak in your own commentary between a patched together pair of quotes and making it appear like I said it all.  Hopefully that was not intentional.

 

And,

"OK, let's play your game.  Assume that God could create something more powerful than himself.  There is no requirement that he do so.  So until he did he would still be omnipotent.  There is a difference between potential and actuality."

1. God is the standard you apply to omnipotence.

My response. 

1. God can't be the standard if the attribute is applied to God because the standard has to be independent of the entity it's applied to or it isn't objective, it's subjective.

Now, an argument can be made that all standards are essentially subjective but empirically if the standard is set independent of the entity it's more objective than it would be if one used a single entity to determine the standard. It makes it potentially applicable to anything not just God.

However, I can see why a believer would want it to apply only to God and therefore argue that God is the standard since the believer is presupposing that God exists and only God has that attribute. 

Such presuppositions don't form convincing arguments to non-believers because we aren't presupposing this.

Let it go.  I am not really making that argument, apart from a single statement.

 

We are applying the objective standard based on the definition of the word, Omnipotent: "all powerful", "infinite power".

In that context, God either has it or he doesn't.

If God has infinite power then he can't make anything more powerful than himself.

Why not?  What is infinity plus 100?

 

If God can't make anything more powerful than himself then he can't do something that Man can do.

Therefore God isn't Omnipotent.

Since Omnipotence is an attribute of God and God can't possibly be Omnipotent, God can't exist.

2. Since God is actually Omnipotent he has the potential to increase his Omnipotence.

This flies in the face of the definition of the term and is logically impossible.

Infinity is a funny thing.  You can add two infinities together and what do you get?  Infinity.

 

Either God has infinite power or he doesn't. Infinite power can't become more infinite. It already is.

Therefore God can't become more than he already is.

<snipped>

 

Nice try, but no go.  I can;t decide if you just don't get it, or you don't want to. :)

Ditto. Lol.

Is potential the same as actuality?  In other words just because God could do something, does he have to do it?

 

--

"If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Ed Jarrett]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:35 AM, lawrey <lawre...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Ed,

Poor analogy I know, came from the top of my head.
Should have stayed there. But you get the drift.
Same old, same old.

Yes, but what else do we have to discuss here? :)

 

Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Ed Jarrett]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 9:07 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

LL: I agree with you in theory, Ed. Omnipotence is not existent in the
universe. If it exists, it's outside the universe, just as god is if
he exists. There is no use arguing over a concept that does not exist
in the universe we know. If it's outside the universe we know, we
can't know about it.

And I think most scientists would agree that we are limited to knowing what is inside our own universe, although that doesn't stop others from still trying to look outside it.

But, just suppose, an entity from outside our universe could know what is going on in ours and chose to communicate with some of us?  Could not that limitation be somewhat overcome?

 

Ed Jarrett (OldMan)

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Trance Gemini]

Which part of the above in quotes didn't you say?

I did a direct cut and paste from the post and all of the above appeared to be yours.

 

 

And,

"OK, let's play your game.  Assume that God could create something more powerful than himself.  There is no requirement that he do so.  So until he did he would still be omnipotent.  There is a difference between potential and actuality."

And this appeared to be yours as well.

 

1. God is the standard you apply to omnipotence.

My response. 

1. God can't be the standard if the attribute is applied to God because the standard has to be independent of the entity it's applied to or it isn't objective, it's subjective.

Now, an argument can be made that all standards are essentially subjective but empirically if the standard is set independent of the entity it's more objective than it would be if one used a single entity to determine the standard. It makes it potentially applicable to anything not just God.

However, I can see why a believer would want it to apply only to God and therefore argue that God is the standard since the believer is presupposing that God exists and only God has that attribute. 

Such presuppositions don't form convincing arguments to non-believers because we aren't presupposing this.

Let it go.  I am not really making that argument, apart from a single statement.

Which is the premise behind the rest of your claim. Seems important to me.

 

 

We are applying the objective standard based on the definition of the word, Omnipotent: "all powerful", "infinite power".

In that context, God either has it or he doesn't.

If God has infinite power then he can't make anything more powerful than himself.

Why not?  What is infinity plus 100?

There is no such thing.

Infinity is already unlimited.

 

 

If God can't make anything more powerful than himself then he can't do something that Man can do.

Therefore God isn't Omnipotent.

Since Omnipotence is an attribute of God and God can't possibly be Omnipotent, God can't exist.

2. Since God is actually Omnipotent he has the potential to increase his Omnipotence.

This flies in the face of the definition of the term and is logically impossible.

Infinity is a funny thing.  You can add two infinities together and what do you get?  Infinity.

And 1x1=1. Does that make the result more than 1?

 

 

Either God has infinite power or he doesn't. Infinite power can't become more infinite. It already is.

Therefore God can't become more than he already is.

<snipped>

 

Nice try, but no go.  I can;t decide if you just don't get it, or you don't want to. :)

Ditto. Lol.

Is potential the same as actuality?  In other words just because God could do something, does he have to do it?

It's irrelevant if he can't do it in the first place.

God has infinite power. Infinity can't be more than infinity.

God can't make something more powerful than infinity.

Man can make things more powerful than Man.

Therefore Man can do something God can't do.

Therefore God isn't Omnipotent and since that's God's attribute it can't exist.

 

 

--

"If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Ed Jarrett]

It does if you establish an independent standard based on the definition of the word.  - That is yours.

 

 

 

And,

"OK, let's play your game.  Assume that God could create something more powerful than himself.  There is no requirement that he do so.  So until he did he would still be omnipotent.  There is a difference between potential and actuality."

And this appeared to be yours as well.

 

1. God is the standard you apply to omnipotence.

My response. 

1. God can't be the standard if the attribute is applied to God because the standard has to be independent of the entity it's applied to or it isn't objective, it's subjective.

Now, an argument can be made that all standards are essentially subjective but empirically if the standard is set independent of the entity it's more objective than it would be if one used a single entity to determine the standard. It makes it potentially applicable to anything not just God.

However, I can see why a believer would want it to apply only to God and therefore argue that God is the standard since the believer is presupposing that God exists and only God has that attribute. 

Such presuppositions don't form convincing arguments to non-believers because we aren't presupposing this.

Let it go.  I am not really making that argument, apart from a single statement.

Which is the premise behind the rest of your claim. Seems important to me.

Not at all.  Use whatever standard for omnipotence you want.

 

 

 

We are applying the objective standard based on the definition of the word, Omnipotent: "all powerful", "infinite power".

In that context, God either has it or he doesn't.

If God has infinite power then he can't make anything more powerful than himself.

Why not?  What is infinity plus 100?

There is no such thing.

Infinity is already unlimited.

Exactly.  An omnipotent being has infinite power.  But, you can add to infinity, although it is still infinity.

 

 

 

If God can't make anything more powerful than himself then he can't do something that Man can do.

Therefore God isn't Omnipotent.

Since Omnipotence is an attribute of God and God can't possibly be Omnipotent, God can't exist.

2. Since God is actually Omnipotent he has the potential to increase his Omnipotence.

This flies in the face of the definition of the term and is logically impossible.

Infinity is a funny thing.  You can add two infinities together and what do you get?  Infinity.

And 1x1=1. Does that make the result more than 1?

???

 

 

 

Either God has infinite power or he doesn't. Infinite power can't become more infinite. It already is.

Therefore God can't become more than he already is.

<snipped>

 

Nice try, but no go.  I can;t decide if you just don't get it, or you don't want to. :)

Ditto. Lol.

Is potential the same as actuality?  In other words just because God could do something, does he have to do it?

It's irrelevant if he can't do it in the first place.

That appears to be the basis for you argument isn't it.  You have decided that God could not do something and that's all there is to it.

 

God has infinite power. Infinity can't be more than infinity.

God can't make something more powerful than infinity.

Man can make things more powerful than Man.

Therefore Man can do something God can't do.

Therefore God isn't Omnipotent and since that's God's attribute it can't exist.

Keep saying it over and over again.  Maybe that will make it come true someday.  But your word games are really just that, a game.  

 

[Timothy 1:4a]

Yes. Hand gestures might help. :-)

I'm definitely being frivolous here. I think it's a frivolous
argument. I hope Trance introduced it in that spirit, and if she did
not, I disagree with her.

For once in his life, Aquinas nailed it. When it comes to things like
building a square circle or making 2+2=3, it's more correct to say,
"It can't be done" than "God can't do it".

Or, taking a hypothetical omnipotent God's side, the answer to all
such questions is, "We don't know." If there is any way to make sense
of the request, then God can do it. If the request is senseless, it's
a null request and there's no reason why an omnipotent should be able
to do it.

[Walt]

On Oct 13, 9:16 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think one reasonable response is that the question is ill-formed.
> > If God is immeasurable or infinitely able/powerful, it's not clear
> > what it even means to say something is more able/powerful.
>
> > God in a sense limited his power (according to the Abrahamic
> > religions) by creating beings with free will.  But I think it's
> > implied he could take away free will if he choose.  Maybe a more well-
> > formed quandary is whether God can irrevocably limit himself.  BUT, an
> > infinitely capable God must transcend time, so it's probably ill
> > formed to speak of God limiting his power and THEN not being able to
> > unlimit it.
>
> And therein lies the logical contradiction which demonstrates that such a
> God cannot exist.

OK consider the question, are there more integers, or more integers
divisible by two. You could say there are more integers because not
all of them are divisible by two. But the set of all integers and the
set of all integers divisible by two have a (actually many) one-to-one
correspondence, which means there are equally many of both. Such
conundrums unavoidably arise when you try to apply the concepts of
more and less to infinity, but that doesn't mean that the integers or
other infinite sets are conceptually invalid.

>
> It must be capable of limiting itself but as soon as it does it is no longer
> omnipotent.

But one simple resolution to that is that God simply chooses not to
impose self-limits, no?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 6:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> > > Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> > > such as strength or intelligence?
>
> > > --
>
> > > "If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove
> > it.
> > > Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.
>
> > > Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land
>

> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>

[LL]

On Oct 15, 12:19 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 12:28 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > LL.  I never said an omnipotent being can't visit us. All I ever said
> > is that no one has ever presented a scrap of observable evidence that
> > it has happened.
>
> Aw, now you are being disingenuous.  What about all the miracles?

LL: You tell me. I have never seen a miracle. If you can produce one,
please do. I don't mean just telling us about them. Show us.

None of the atheists on this group is disingenuous. We leave that to
the theists.

>
> >When you or anyone can do that all atheists will take
> > notice. We will weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion based on
> > the evidence. Until then we have nothing to go on but empty claims. A
> > claim is not evidence.
>
> A claim can point you to evidence, then it is up to you to research
> the claim.
>
> If you cared to, but you don't.

LL: One cannot research a claim that has no evidence for it. There is
nothing to research. You are asking for the impossible. If you think I
can do that, then you show me your research and evidence that Zeus is
not god. I'll use the same method. Otherwise, I can only assume you
don't care to do it.

*******************

[LL]

LL: But arguments can be and you appear to be an expert at them.

>
> Pretty sure Trance has me blocked, so this is for the benefit of
> others, although it stretches the limits of my credulity to think
> anyone could still take this objection seriously.

LL: Trance doesn't have you blocked. You are exhibiting signs of
paranoia.


******************************************

[LL]

LL: Maybe, but so far no one has shown any evidence that it has been
or can be. "What if" and "suppose" doesn't count for much.

Anything is possible if there are no limits and no rules. If there is
a god and he can overcome the limitations of the universe as we know
it, he should be able to show us poor benighted creatures how we can
see that. If he created us he evidently created us with a limited mind
and a limited universe, so all we can do is work with what we have. We
can't overcome our god-given limitations just because we want to or
because someone challenges us to do it.

Don't you think that if your god really wanted us to break free of the
limitations he has created in us he could do it? Why would he have
created these limitations in the first place and then expect us to
break out of them? I don't get it.
>
> Ed Jarrett (OldMan)http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Joe]

Point it out.

>
>
> > Pretty sure Trance has me blocked, so this is for the benefit of
> > others, although it stretches the limits of my credulity to think
> > anyone could still take this objection seriously.
>
> LL: Trance doesn't have you blocked.

And you know this because. . .?

>You are exhibiting signs of
> paranoia.
>

Not really. Trance never replies to my direct replies to her, just as
if she never saw them. I think I insulted her one too many times.

[Eric Griswold, R.C.]

If God CANNOT create something more powerful than Himself, that is
proof there is one thing He cannot do. If there is even one thing He
cannot do, than He is not omnipotent. He has some limitations. This
would argue that omnipotence is logically contradictory. A God (or
advanced being) might perhaps be very powerful, but never omnipotent.

But some might still insist on a God who is entirely omnipotent. If
so, of course He could create a being more powerful than Himself... or
a million of them.

But how could He do this if He is omnipotent already? What could be
bigger than Him?
Well, perhaps He could expand omnipotence itself by giving it one more
attribute. Making it into a greater omniscience [O+1]. Then giving the
special power [O+1] to newly created being(s), which would now be more
powerful than Him.
Some would say this is impossible--that omnipotence is already as big
as it can get. Really? Says who? Are you going to walk up to some
omnipotent being and tell them they are incapable of expanding
omnipotence itself? You would be telling them there is one more thing
they cannot do, and therefore they are not omnipotent.

Some thinkers fudge this issue and say that God cannot do what is
logically impossible, blah blah. Which is another way of saying that
floating in the universe somewhere are these disembodied "Laws of
Logic" that are stronger even than God Himself, because He has to
follow them too. Which is another way of saying God is not omnipotent.


But for those who find this a little too heady, there is an easier way
out. An omnipotent being could create another omnipotent being, then
subtract from Himself one attribute of omnipotence. Say, the ability
to see through walls and detect virgins a long way off. The original
being would now be ever so slightly less than omnipotent [O-1], and
the new being(s) would be more powerful than Him.


The primitive Isrealites had their local god YHWH who was pretty
strong (though sometimes the Isrealites still lost) and pretty
perceptive (though sometimes he could still be surprised). They could
have stopped there and avoided a lot of logical absurdities. For
example the absurd conflict between omnipotence and any concept of
moral responsibility. If I am the trainmaster and see a train about to
crash into another train, and I have the omnipotent power to push a
button and stop it-- but I don't-- I now assume full moral
responsibility for the crash. Any court would find it so. It would be
like I slaughtered them myself. "With great power comes great
responsibility."

A primitive, limited god might have some defense-- "I can't be
everywhere all at once!"
The Paulist/Mideval Schloastic version of God has no such defense. He
is claimed to have infinite foreknowledge, and also infinite power
over every event from train crash, to volcano, to hurricaine, to
murder. That makes Him guilty of every death he foresaw but did not
prevent.

Some thinkers fudge this issue by saying we have Free Will. In other
words, we can make moral choices that God has no power over, and
therefore it is our responsibility, not His. If you can walk up to an
omnipotent being and say there are choices you can make that they
cannot make, you would be telling them there is one more thing they
cannot do, and therefore they are not omnipotent.


Hope this is food for thought.

On Oct 13, 5:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Humans can create robots far stronger than themselves.
>
> Can God create something far more powerful than him in any respect,
> such as strength or intelligence?
>

> --
>
> "If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it.
> Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.
>

[Joe]

On Oct 15, 4:20 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. Hand gestures might help. :-)
>

Since he would essentially be speaking a different language, God could
directly infuse the waiter with knowledge of that language.

> I'm definitely being frivolous here.

I know.

> I think it's a frivolous
> argument.

I agree.

> I hope Trance introduced it in that spirit, and if she did
> not, I disagree with her.
>

Well, she does seem to be running with it.

> For once in his life, Aquinas nailed it.

Aw. Only once? Saint Thomas is pretty well-respected in intellectual
circles, by theists and atheists alike.

>When it comes to things like
> building a square circle or making 2+2=3, it's more correct to say,
> "It can't be done" than "God can't do it".
>

Yes, but my assessment of it takes it one step further than that.
"It" can't be done because "it" is in reality nothing at all.

> Or, taking a hypothetical omnipotent God's side, the answer to all
> such questions is, "We don't know." If there is any way to make sense
> of the request, then God can do it. If the request is senseless, it's
> a null request and there's no reason why an omnipotent should be able
> to do it.
>

Yes, my thoughts exactly. :)

[Joe]

On Oct 15, 6:12 pm, "Eric Griswold, R.C." <e...@clevian.com> wrote:
> If God CANNOT create something more powerful than Himself, that is
> proof there is one thing He cannot do.

Wrong. There is not any thing that God cannot do. "Something more
powerful than God," is not a thing. Not every phrase names a thing.
Some phrases are mere nonsense, and "something more powerful than God"
is an example of such.

>If there is even one thing He
> cannot do, than He is not omnipotent. He has some limitations. This
> would argue that omnipotence is logically contradictory.

No, rather, your definition of non-things as things is logically

contradictory.

>A God (or
> advanced being) might perhaps be very powerful, but never omnipotent.
>

We may define omnipotence as possessing all power.

Producing contradictions is not a real power, so an omnipotent being
does not possess it.

> But some might still insist on a God who is entirely omnipotent. If
> so, of course He could create a being more powerful than Himself... or
> a million of them.
>
> But how could He do this if He is omnipotent already? What could be
> bigger than Him?
> Well, perhaps He could expand omnipotence itself by giving it one more
> attribute. Making it into a greater omniscience [O+1]. Then giving the
> special power [O+1] to newly created being(s), which would now be more
> powerful than Him.
> Some would say this is impossible--that omnipotence is already as big
> as it can get. Really? Says who? Are you going to walk up to some
> omnipotent being and tell them they are incapable of expanding
> omnipotence itself? You would be telling them there is one more thing
> they cannot do, and therefore they are not omnipotent.
>

God cannot become more omnipotent than He is, because "more
omnipotent" is nonsense. Omnipotence is absolute. Hence the prefix,
"omni-".

> Some thinkers fudge this issue and say that God cannot do what is
> logically impossible, blah blah.

Your "blah blah" is superfluous. What is logically impossible can't
be done, because there is no coherent task specified.

>Which is another way of saying that
> floating in the universe somewhere are these disembodied "Laws of
> Logic" that are stronger even than God Himself, because He has to
> follow them too. Which is another way of saying God is not omnipotent.
>

No, God is the Logos. Logic is not superior or inferior to God; the
Logos is God.

It fails, several times in a row. More fodder than food.

[Joe]

On Oct 15, 5:05 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 12:19 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:28 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > LL.  I never said an omnipotent being can't visit us. All I ever said
> > > is that no one has ever presented a scrap of observable evidence that
> > > it has happened.
>
> > Aw, now you are being disingenuous.  What about all the miracles?
>
> LL: You tell me. I have never seen a miracle. If you can produce one,
> please do. I don't mean just telling us about them. Show us.
>

You want me to work a miracle? Sorry, I don't have that power. But
the Saints in heaven do, and they have worked miracle after miracle
after miracle. You reject them all, out of hand, on frivolous
grounds.

> None of the atheists on this group is disingenuous. We leave that to
> the theists.
>

You say some pretty foolish things, but this one possibly takes the
cake.

>
>
> > >When you or anyone can do that all atheists will take
> > > notice. We will weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion based on
> > > the evidence. Until then we have nothing to go on but empty claims. A
> > > claim is not evidence.
>
> > A claim can point you to evidence, then it is up to you to research
> > the claim.
>
> > If you cared to, but you don't.
>
> LL: One cannot research a claim that has no evidence for it.

That wouldn't apply to the many, many miracles recorded in history.
There are people living today who have received miraculous cures.

>There is
> nothing to research.

That would be very convenient for you, if only it were the case.
Unfortunately for your agenda, it isn't.

>You are asking for the impossible. If you think I
> can do that, then you show me your research and evidence that Zeus is
> not god.

Non-sequitur. We were discussing reality, not mythology.

>I'll use the same method. Otherwise, I can only assume you
> don't care to do it.
>

If you wish to investigate the medical records of the miracles of the
Causes of the Saints, you can find them. That is as far as I'm taking
you.

[Joe]

In the Incarnation, God limited Himself. So He can do that, too.

[Alan Wostenberg]

Kitty, one may as well argue that the fact that humans can lie, and God cannot, limits omnipotence. Some "powers" -- such as the "power" to lie, or make a machine that can lift more than its maker,  are in fact limitations.  It is only because the maker has physical strength of X not X+1 that he can imagine a machine of strength X+1, and by so dominating matter through his intellectual power, make a machine of strength X+1. But even in this feat of mind over matter the maker betrays his own limitations -- deprive him of matter and he is powerless to make any machine.  Omnipotence suffers no such limits.

[Observer]

On Oct 15, 3:37 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the Incarnation, God limited Himself.  So He can do that, too.

Observer

Such stupidity as to believe such utter nonsense is the paramount in
self deception.

You are inadequate to the task of supplying any scientifically
verifiable substantiating data for the existence of or any act there
of in or on the universe.

With your rather unique experiences with mental disease I suggest that
you read the following and seek professional psychiatric counselling
from other than the equally psychotic , priest craft.

http://www.nasonart.com/personal/lifelessons/CaseAgainstReligion.html

Psychonomist

[Observer]

On Oct 13, 9:14 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trance, God can create anything possible. A being more intelligent than
> Omniscience is a self-contradiction. God cannot create it for the same
> reason He cannot create a married bachelor. It would be more accurate to say
> it cannot be done, than to say God cannot do it.


Observer

What God you fucking, ghost chasing loon?

Psychonomist