Limitless possibilities of god

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Kame, this is ridiculous. The further along we go into your never-ending barrage of straw men the more your stance twists in on itself. The point of the thread was to provide positive evidence god is possible. Do so or concede that you are unable to.

I'm not a theist. I don't claim to know if there is a god.

My argument is not one of straw men. You simply need to define god your way to paint bullseyes around your points. That's trollish and stupid.

Either talk "god" in the same sense that everyone else is talking about, or use your own term to disprove your flying, pink elephants.




Using your debating tactic, I can prove that you don't exist:

Any being that deserves the title of "Zhavric" has 298 toes, can talk to lizards, and can reach through his television set into the program he's watching.

It is demonstrably impossible for a being to reach through his television set, so "Zhavric" can not exist.



Wow, now that I come to think of it, paining bullseyes around your points can be applied to anything. That sort of makes it worthless as a tactic, huh?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm not a theist. I don't claim to know if there is a god.

No. You've claimed god is possible, but (as we've proven elsewhere) there is no positive evidence god is possible so this is a stance you hold via faith.

My argument is not one of straw men. You simply need to define god your way to paint bullseyes around your points. That's trollish and stupid.

It's "trollish & stupid" because you can't find a way to argue around it honestly. You can only argue dishonestly by making unsupported statements and making up god as you go along. Really, you're not much different from a theist and in many ways FAR more creative.

Either talk "god" in the same sense that everyone else is talking about,

I stopped reading there. Your ability to ignore evidence is matched only by Captain Chaos':

Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God.

God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the familiar terms "omnipotent," "omnipresent," and "omniscient" to describe members of the Godhead.

Because the Lord our God is omnipotent, we can confidently trust Him in all things and with all things. Omnipotence simply means "all powerful".

Omnipotence, sometimes known as being all-powerful, refers to God’s ability to do absolutely anything God wants. This characteristic is usually treated as implied from God’s characteristic as absolute creator.

The attribute of God which describes his ability to do whatever He wills. God's will is limited by His nature, and He therefore cannot do anything contrary to His nature as God, such as to ignore sin, to sin, or to do something absurd or self-contradictory. God is not controlled by His power, but has complete control over it; otherwise He would not be a free being.

Everyone else understands that god is defined as being omnipotent except, well... you and CC.

[Kamehameha34]

No. You've claimed god is possible, but (as we've proven elsewhere) there is no positive evidence god is possible so this is a stance you hold via faith.

No, I hold that, without contradictory or confirming evidence, god is unknown.

It's "trollish & stupid" because you can't find a way to argue around it honestly. You can only argue dishonestly by making unsupported statements and making up god as you go along. Really, you're not much different from a theist and in many ways FAR more creative.

You're the one requiring me to define my gods specifically, and into impossibility. I've asserted that my definition is a being that created the universe, with consciousness.

Your inability to contemplate this subject makes you want to simplify it into something you can actually disprove, which brings me to my next subject:

I stopped reading there. Your ability to ignore evidence is matched only by Captain Chaos': Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God. God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the familiar terms "omnipotent," "omnipresent," and "omniscient" to describe members of the Godhead. Because the Lord our God is omnipotent, we can confidently trust Him in all things and with all things. Omnipotence simply means "all powerful". Omnipotence, sometimes known as being all-powerful, refers to God’s ability to do absolutely anything God wants. This characteristic is usually treated as implied from God’s characteristic as absolute creator. The attribute of God which describes his ability to do whatever He wills. God's will is limited by His nature, and He therefore cannot do anything contrary to His nature as God, such as to ignore sin, to sin, or to do something absurd or self-contradictory. God is not controlled by His power, but has complete control over it; otherwise He would not be a free being. Everyone else understands that god is defined as being omnipotent except, well... you and CC.

Every single one of those links is riddled with examples of specific gods, and qualifiers.

I'm not arguing for the Christian god. I'm telling you that the claim "god exists" is unknown. If you can't grasp that, don't attempt to tell me what I believe in a bullish attempt to contradict me. You are unable to discuss the topic at hand. Once again, come up with your own term. No one's convinced by your ability to disprove flying, pink elephants.

[Captain Chaos]

I stopped reading there. Your ability to ignore evidence is matched only by Captain Chaos':

This is like a 5-year-old brat calling his teacher uneducated.

Everyone else understands that god is defined as being omnipotent except, well... you and CC.

And, apparently, dictionary.com. You will notice that most of the definitions at dictionary.com do not include omnipotence.

Oh, and all the worshippers of pagan gods from our past...

And most deists...

Including:

Anthony Flew:
Famed Atheist Champion Antony Flew Switches Over to Belief in a Deist God

These guys:
Deism--Beliefnet.com

These guys:
Deists of VA/TN



I looked around on the net. It seems to me that most deists do not apply omnipotence to god.

So, Zhavric...

are Me and Kame alone?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Zhavric This is a chance for agnostics to prove that god is a possibility. Please, please, please do not waste our time with "I can imagine it & you can't disprove it" arguments. You need positive support for god to be possible.

It really is a shame that all of you have failed to debate. You agnostics... really, you're worse than theists who at least THINK they have evidence. You guys? Nothing. No logical arguments. No evidence. Just a half-dozen pages of "what if"?

[Kamehameha34]

No, the shame's in the fact that you've so grossly misinterpretted our position.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z It really is a shame that all of you have failed to debate. You agnostics... really, you're worse than theists who at least THINK they have evidence. You guys? Nothing. No logical arguments. No evidence. Just a half-dozen pages of "what if"?

Maybe the final word on it is that you're just not worth the effort.

[Jack]

Now that everyone's had a chance to be snide with one another, could we please get back to discussing the topic, not each other?

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric It really is a shame that all of you have failed to debate. You agnostics... really, you're worse than theists who at least THINK they have evidence. You guys? Nothing. No logical arguments. No evidence. Just a half-dozen pages of "what if"?

I notice, Zhavric, that you failed to respond to my post #64. You never reply when you are proven wrong, you just ignore those posts.

Whether or not you like it, there are plenty of people who use the term god to refer to potential or imaginary non-omnipotent but very powerful beings.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I notice, Zhavric, that you failed to respond to my post #64.

You mean the one where you called me a brat? Ad hominem arguments truly get me in the mood to reply to someone's posts. True story.

Let's see. You linked to a message board, a site on ONE specific former atheist and some of the founding fathers. Message boards aren't valid expert sources (especially when they have a staggering 4 posts...), the single atheist's objection to omnipotence had more to do with god's alleged actions towards humans as evidenced by "god is a cosmic Saddm Hussein" comment and the founding father's objection to god had far more to do with politics than religion... Had you actually read your own link, you'd understand that Deists don't consider god omnipotent because omnipotence has already been considered & disproven.

Deism, as we define it, is a belief in a loving creator, an ultimate, eternal being, who is omnipresent and omniscient and perfectly good, but not omnipotent. This definition, with important qualifications, has substantial basis in philosophical history, despite the all-too widespread impression that the deistic creator is indifferent to its creation. The popular analogy for the deistic god is a supernatural watchmaker who may for all we know be fascinated by its handiwork, but is definitely not emotionally involved.

Omnipotence cannot exist with omnibenevolence: something deists understood that you have failed to grasp.

Honestly, man, you really are all out in the cold on this one.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Honestly, man, you really are all out in the cold on this one.

No, Zhavric.

I was providing evidence for you that there are others who talk about non-omnipotent gods. This does not prove that such gods exist. This proves that the word god is used to refer to non-omnipotent beings.

Do you acknowledge that pagans use the word god to refer to their imagined non-omnipotent superbeings?

[InTheFlesh?]

Surely God can only be validly worshipped if he is omnipotent.

Wether or not he exists without omnipotence a human can feel as safe, protected, guided as they want. They therefore have complete control over their lives.

Perhaps God takes the form of a life force or Self, as yogic belief suggests. In this case, you mainly use your own Self to give you strength, as it comes within.

The title suggests limitless possibilities of God, so maybe God is what you make it.

I dunno, best not to think about it too much. You're not going to change anyone's minds, and mostly if you think you're right then that's pretty good for you.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: InTheFlesh? Surely God can only be validly worshipped if he is omnipotent.

I do not understand why a god would want worship.

Regardless, Zhavric is unable to get past the fact that many people use the word god to refer to beings that are not omnipotent. At this point, I am just going to focus on that, to see if he can get past his mental block.

[InTheFlesh?]

Yeah I agree, why would a God want worship? But then that draws into question why he asks us to worship him and not other Gods, or why bother creating us at all.

Perhaps we should think of religions as multi-galactic businesses and the gods compete in a capitalist way to win our belief, and reward their customers with miracles.

Maybe....

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: InTheFlesh? Yeah I agree, why would a God want worship? But then that draws into question why he asks us to worship him and not other Gods, or why bother creating us at all. Perhaps we should think of religions as multi-galactic businesses and the gods compete in a capitalist way to win our belief, and reward their customers with miracles. Maybe....

There could be a thousand reasons why a god would want to create a universe, people, all that stuff.

Such things could also arise through natural selection (including life-bearing universes).

My point is that if things as complex as life-bearing universes can emerge through natural processes, then it seems likely that non-omnipotent gods could also emerge. The only reason they would not emerge is if the laws of physics do not permit it.

I have another thread on this topic if you want to discuss that in an intelligent manner:

Is a god possible?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Captain Chaos My point is that if things as complex as life-bearing universes can emerge through natural processes, then it seems likely that non-omnipotent gods could also emerge.

Agnostics are the truly faithful. Atheists go by the evidence provided by science. Theists go by the so-called "evidence" of their personal experience and holy texts. Agnostics are really the ones who believe things in a complete absence of evidence & logic.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Agnostics are the truly faithful. Atheists go by the evidence provided by science. Theists go by the so-called "evidence" of their personal experience and holy texts. Agnostics are really the ones who believe things in a complete absence of evidence & logic.

There is no direct evidence for extraterrestrial intelligent life.

Tell me, Zhavric, do you believe that E.T.s exist somewhere in the universe?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Agnostics are the truly faithful. Atheists go by the evidence provided by science. Theists go by the so-called "evidence" of their personal experience and holy texts. Agnostics are really the ones who believe things in a complete absence of evidence & logic.

Restating your debunked view doesn't earn you points in a debate.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Restating your debunked view doesn't earn you points in a debate.

Dude, Zhavric is incapable of seeing his own mistakes. Better to have fun at his expense than actually try to get through to him. I am guessing his pride outweighs his judgement, in such matters.