Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Deba...

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#664 Mar 27, 2014
Thinking wrote:
So your god can't create an unbreakable rock and is therefore not omnipotent.
Your god is another limited mess.
<quoted text>
God does all the possible, for It has made all the impossible so.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#665 Mar 27, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly, and if they would spend 3 seconds actually reading what we write instead of what they want to read into our postings, we would be much further down this road towards an end to the confusion and conflict. Right now, we are them in 20-50 years.
The truth can't be covered up forever. You simply can't cut off little girls genitalia off anymore, you can't stone your neighbors and you can't kill off Wal-mart's Sunday employees. Most religions are already dead, but the self serving spell casters/priest etc. refuse to quit passing the collection plate and tithing envelopes
Yes, i.e. the believers.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#666 Mar 28, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, i.e. the believers.
If you don't believe in every one of the believers gods, then you are an atheist. If you believe in a god you are a theist, if like you claim, that you are only a knower, then you are exactly like all the other believers, for they too know there is a god, but it's not your god, it's their god.
Thinking

Cupar, UK

#667 Mar 28, 2014
Then nothing is impossible. Therefore your god is still not omnipotent.
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
God does all the possible, for It has made all the impossible so.

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#668 Mar 28, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, It can break any rock.
If he can create an absolutely unbreakable rock that he himself can't break,then he is not omnipotent.As he wouldn't be able to break such rock!
So your God by any means is not omnipotent.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#669 Mar 28, 2014
We are all of us natural beings, living in a natural world, and constrained to perceive and realize only the naturally possible, but enabled to conceive the naturally unrealistically impossible in our imagination.
Therefore God is naturally realistically perceived to be omnipotent, but may be naturally unrealistically conceived by any Atheist endowed with imagination as not omnipotent.
So, naturally, God is omnipotent in reality; but naturally, anybody can concoct any unreal impossibility for God in his imagination, such as a rock that is breakable and that which is absolutely divinely unbreakable.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#670 Mar 28, 2014
What fadu singh knows doesn't have a beginning, can be conceived by fadu singh as having been created by God in fadu singh's imagination.
B_V Ciccone

United States

#671 Mar 28, 2014
jide oni wrote:
We are all of us natural beings, living in a natural world, and constrained to perceive and realize only the naturally possible, but enabled to conceive the naturally unrealistically impossible in our imagination.
Therefore God is naturally realistically perceived to be omnipotent, but may be naturally unrealistically conceived by any Atheist endowed with imagination as not omnipotent.
So, naturally, God is omnipotent in reality; but naturally, anybody can concoct any unreal impossibility for God in his imagination, such as a rock that is breakable and that which is absolutely divinely unbreakable.
What about a material girl living in a material world ?

Since: Jan 14

United States

#672 Mar 28, 2014
B_V Ciccone wrote:
<quoted text>
What about a material girl living in a material world ?
A natural girl is she, still and yet.

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#673 Mar 28, 2014
jide oni wrote:
We are all of us natural beings, living in a natural world, and constrained to perceive and realize only the naturally possible, but enabled to conceive the naturally unrealistically impossible in our imagination.
Therefore God is naturally realistically perceived to be omnipotent, but may be naturally unrealistically conceived by any Atheist endowed with imagination as not omnipotent.
So, naturally, God is omnipotent in reality; but naturally, anybody can concoct any unreal impossibility for God in his imagination, such as a rock that is breakable and that which is absolutely divinely unbreakable.
Omnipotence means capable of doing everything.If your God can't do certain things(which you call unnatural) why do you still call him omnipotent?

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#674 Mar 28, 2014
jide oni wrote:
We are all of us natural beings, living in a natural world, and constrained to perceive and realize only the naturally possible, but enabled to conceive the naturally unrealistically impossible in our imagination.
Therefore God is naturally realistically perceived to be omnipotent, but may be naturally unrealistically conceived by any Atheist endowed with imagination as not omnipotent.
So, naturally, God is omnipotent in reality; but naturally, anybody can concoct any unreal impossibility for God in his imagination, such as a rock that is breakable and that which is absolutely divinely unbreakable.
First of all define omnipotence and shed a light on your ignorance

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#675 Mar 28, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text> Omnipotence means capable of doing everything.If your God can't do certain things(which you call unnatural) why do you still call him omnipotent?
The unnatural is nothing; the unnatural is impossible with God, therefore nothing is impossible with God.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#676 Mar 29, 2014
Omnipotence, as a natural concept of a natural man in our natural world, means naturally capable of everything within the confines of nature.
Omnipotence conceived beyond the confines of the natural, is a meaningless concept having existence only in the realm of man's imagination.
+2-2=0; self-contradiction is self-neutralizing; the contradictory concept of God's capability to create the uncreatable, equals nothing; therefore (such) nothing is impossible with God, and so everything is possible with God; and therefore the God is omnipotent.

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#677 Mar 29, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Omnipotence, as a natural concept of a natural man in our natural world, means naturally capable of everything within the confines of nature.
Omnipotence conceived beyond the confines of the natural, is a meaningless concept having existence only in the realm of man's imagination.
+2-2=0; self-contradiction is self-neutralizing; the contradictory concept of God's capability to create the uncreatable, equals nothing; therefore (such) nothing is impossible with God, and so everything is possible with God; and therefore the God is omnipotent.
This is not a true definition of omnipotence.Even if it seems valid to you explain as to how you know such rock is impossible?
Why do you think such rock can't exist in the first place?How do you know such rock is inconceivable while all it takes to create a rock is infinite mass and very small density?
Infinite is not impossible as we know we deal with infinity in mathematics and the physical world is based on mathematics.
All your God needs to do is make a choice between two things.He has to make a rock which has infinite rigidity(which is again at least logically/mathematically possible) or he has to show that his power is infinite and can break anything.
What I want to show is he can do this two things simultaneously.It doesn't mean it is impossible.You can call it is impossible only if there is any logical fallacy in the problem of creating a infinitely rigid rock.If anything is impossible here is it is omnipotence which is impossible even within the realms of logic.

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#678 Mar 29, 2014
Correction:" What I want to show is he can do this two things simultaneously"

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#679 Mar 29, 2014
Can't

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#680 Mar 29, 2014
I have said and proved it that nothing has a beginning, and what has no beginning couldn't have been created.
But to insist that an uncreatable rock could have been created, is in itself a violation of simple rules of logic.
What doesn't exist couldn't have have existed; and what exists couldn't have not existed.
A breakable rock that couldn't be broken is unbreakable, and unbreakable rock that is broken is breakable.
what is, is; what is not, is not. if what is, is not, it isn't; if what is not, is, it is.
For instance, miracles are impossibilities; any performed miracle, is a possibility, hence it ceases from being a miracle.
An impossibility that is made possible, is a possible impossibility, hence a possibility, An impossible possibility is an unattempted possibility which seems impossible until it is made possible. Whereas, impossible possibility is naturally impossible, such as reversing a past action, eternal rock with a created beginning, making an impotence of an omnipotence, etc, etc.

Since: Mar 12

Bandra, India

#681 Mar 29, 2014
jide oni wrote:
I have said and proved it that nothing has a beginning, and what has no beginning couldn't have been created.
But to insist that an uncreatable rock could have been created, is in itself a violation of simple rules of logic.
What doesn't exist couldn't have have existed; and what exists couldn't have not existed.
A breakable rock that couldn't be broken is unbreakable, and unbreakable rock that is broken is breakable.
what is, is; what is not, is not. if what is, is not, it isn't; if what is not, is, it is.
For instance, miracles are impossibilities; any performed miracle, is a possibility, hence it ceases from being a miracle.
An impossibility that is made possible, is a possible impossibility, hence a possibility, An impossible possibility is an unattempted possibility which seems impossible until it is made possible. Whereas, impossible possibility is naturally impossible, such as reversing a past action, eternal rock with a created beginning, making an impotence of an omnipotence, etc, etc.
Absolute gibberish post to circumvent my my argument!
There is nothing called "impossible possibility" or "possible impossibility" as these phrases are self-contradictions.
Secondly,what doesn't exist can possibly exist in future unless it is a logically impossible.For instance,human beings didn't exist until some million years ago. Does this mean your God has violated his own inviolable laws that he created something that didn't exist few years ago?Didn't you say your God's laws are absolutely inviolable and consistent at all time?
Then why you're so certain that something that doesn't exist would never come into existence when there are so many examples you can take against your lame stupid argument?
The " stone creation" argument that I put forth before is a sound argument and you can't call it an impossibility unless you find it "logically impossible" or have a direct evidence against it .I am just getting lame excuses from you when I am expecting a cogent answer from you.
Let me put it this way:
1) Can your God create a rock that he himself can't break( don't say it is an impossibility unless you find it is logically impossible like 2+2=5)
2)If he can't create such rock then why he is called omnipotent?

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#682 Mar 29, 2014
The question of God's creating a rock doesn't arise, as long as God is not a creator Itself.
And whatever was not, but now comes into our awareness, is a possibility. but not created.
Note that my concept of God is far from the personalized deity of the believers. But I conceive God as the totality of all that exist in knowledge, power, in space and in time.
So, the omnipotence of God is the cumulative aggregate of all powers that be, yours inclusive.

Since: Mar 12

Bandra, India

#683 Mar 29, 2014
jide oni wrote:
The question of God's creating a rock doesn't arise, as long as God is not a creator Itself.
And whatever was not, but now comes into our awareness, is a possibility. but not created.
Note that my concept of God is far from the personalized deity of the believers. But I conceive God as the totality of all that exist in knowledge, power, in space and in time.
So, the omnipotence of God is the cumulative aggregate of all powers that be, yours inclusive.
You contradict yourself every now and then.
Didn't you say God can do every possible task?We human beings could/can create various things.So creation is possible.Since we human beings are part of nature,creation is also natural(not unnatural as you say)
If your can't be a creator and can't do what we can do,then how can he be omnipotent?
You have so many flaws in your statements.Revise your ideas about God and make it better so I may concur with you in future.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 40 min Frindly 3,132
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 45 min Frindly 83,762
what science will NEVER be able to prove 12 hr superwilly 59
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Sat ChristineM 3,995
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... (May '17) Dec 8 Frindly 1,190
High School Atheism Dec 8 Reason Personified 31
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) Dec 7 Eagle 12 - 128
More from around the web