# The christian concept of god has many problems



## Guest

the question of omnipotence. can god create a rock he cannot lift?


----------



## Guest

That's not just Christianity's view of God, that's pretty much every montheistic religion's view of God. I add my own twist to it and say God allows for all existence entirely. He could create that boulder, yes, but it doesn't mean that he does, because he knows what will happen if he does. And if this God is no longer omnipotent, then he is a different God no longer God and the omnipotent one remains in his place. I suggest you read Lao Tzu's "Tao Te Ching" (http://www.sonshi.com/laotzu.html). The Tao described there is pretty much the omnipotent God you are arguing against the existence of. Christians plainly don't really go to great extents to define God in his power but they do say he is all-powerful, and that assumes that he is what allows for existence, and thus what Laotzu called Tao.

It may be philosophy once more, but it's a philosophy outside the conception of humanity. After reading that, I realize how different humantiy is from all of nature and how we have deviated from the natural path for our own developed reason. It doesn't seem like man-made philosphy even as it is.


----------



## Martinelv

> He could create that boulder, yes, but it doesn't mean that he does, because he knows what will happen if he does


Er, OK. So god knows that he could create a boulder that is too heavy for him to lift, so he won't do it. Is that correct ? I guess you're right. He would look a little silly if he did wouldn't he.



> It may be philosophy once more, but it's a philosophy outside the conception of humanity.


Er, so someone wrote a book about a philosophy that we, and the author presumably, can never hope to understand. Does it sell well ?


----------



## Homeskooled

Oh my....look, you guys have to read up on this stuff before knocking it. Okay, first of all, the stupid rock argument. Its a trick question. It doesnt make any sense. Its constructed so it doesnt. Its like a lawyer saying, " So do you only beat your wife on Sunday's?" to a defendant. No matter which way he answers, the fact that he beats his wife is taken for granted in the question. No matter which way the rock question is answered, you've already made a limiting statement. Martin, are you familiar with the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas? He is as close to the "official" Catholic theologian as you can get. God cannot contradict His own nature. Technically Martin, you cant either. God cannot lie, because he is truth. He cannot become all-weak. Aquinas even asked the question whether God could create any animals other than the ones which are alive now. Like an Oliphaunt or a Heffalump. Aquinas argues that he cannot. I wont go to indepth, but God is perfect, and his actions are perfectly complete. If God had been able create anything else on earth at that point, it would have been done. God cant "hold back" or "half-ass" a job. This stuff goes alot deeper than pop atheism gives it credit for. Its like me talking about the royal family. I know so little, that what I'm saying eventually sounds like a stereotype.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## lone wolf

Homeskooled said:


> God cannot contradict His own nature. --- God cannot lie, because he is truth. He cannot become all-weak. Aquinas even asked the question whether God could create any animals other than the ones which are alive now. --- Aquinas argues that he cannot. I wont go to indepth, but God is perfect, and his actions are perfectly complete. If God had been able create anything else on earth at that point, it would have been done.


Though I do not know about the theology, which those ideas are based on, what you said made perfect sense to me. I perceive God as the universe, or perhaps as the multitude of universes (whatever, dunno) - as all that exists and is non-existent linked together as a whole. In the way of natural science: the equation of God would include everything that is, has been, will be (and what can be, cannot be...) However - I'm aware that mathematics is just a contruction of the human mind, and therefore I haven't got even the slightest idea, what the "core equation of everything" would really represent.


----------



## Martinelv

> Its a trick question. It doesnt make any sense.


Exactly !!! You've proved my point. You're completely right when you say it doesn't make sense, because you are unable to admit or comprehend that your diety (whichever one it is) cannot be completely omnipotent. But you're utterly wrong when you say it's a trick question, because it's not. It is a simple proof that nothing and nobody can be completly omnipotent. If your diety, by his very nature, CANNOT do EVERYTHING, then he is NOT omnipotent.



> God cannot contradict his own nature


Another case in point. Why can't he, if he's all powerfull ? And this also implies that he himself was created, which begs the question, who by ?



> God cannot lie, because he is truth


If you read the bible, you may notice that god lies, decieves and generally behaves like a git quite a lot. If you want examples I'd be more than happy to give them to you.



> This stuff goes alot deeper than pop atheism gives it credit for


Ha ha !!! Pop atheism !! What's that ? Disbelieving to a good dance beat ? Anyway, it doesn't go 'deeper' than us poor uneducated, unelightened atheists believe. What 'it' does it continually TWIST the truth. There's a subtle difference, but one not entirely lost on most people.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 


> Another case in point. Why can't he, if he's all powerfull ? And this also implies that he himself was created, which begs the question, who by ?


Haha....okay Martin. You win. Everything which has a nature has a Creator. Even you.



> If you read the bible, you may notice that god lies, decieves and generally behaves like a git quite a lot. If you want examples I'd be more than happy to give them to you.


Yes, actually, I would like some quotes of God lying, provided that you quote the philosopher from the other thread who "first" spoke of Christ 60 years after His death. Just make sure you arent quoting Josephus, who spoke about Him 30 years afterwards.



> Exactly !!! You've proved my point. You're completely right when you say it doesn't make sense, because you are unable to admit or comprehend that your diety (whichever one it is) cannot be completely omnipotent. But you're utterly wrong when you say it's a trick question, because it's not. It is a simple proof that nothing and nobody can be completly omnipotent. If your diety, by his very nature, CANNOT do EVERYTHING, then he is NOT omnipotent.





> Ha ha !!! Pop atheism !! What's that ? Disbelieving to a good dance beat ? Anyway, it doesn't go 'deeper' than us poor uneducated, unelightened atheists believe.


Lets start at the top here. No, the fact that it is a trick question doesnt prove your point. Yes, the situation is a paradox. Yes, paradoxes by their nature undercut logic. Yes, that makes it a trick question. No, its not a proof. No, if a deity cannot lift stones that cannot be lifted, it does not negate omnipotence. No, pop atheism is not a dance. No, scratch that, it is. And yes, it does go much deeper with some atheists. Do you think that atheists this century were the first to use the "rock that cannot be lifted" question? Try rewinding 10 centuries, then 10 more. Try Plato. Try Socrates, try Maimonides. These werent atheistic philosphers. They believed in deities. Socrates was the first to beleive in monotheism. But because they were in search of Truth, they asked these questions. You think the rock question is tough? What if you have two omnipotent beings. One wishes to move a feather. One wishes for it to remain still. If they both have infinite power, they will be able to negate each other, which will mean that they are not omnipotent. If one overpowers the other, still loss of omnipotence. These questions have been debated for centuries. I have a more in depth explanation of the ability of omnipotence to deal with impossible situations (which is how the rock question is classified, as well as other classic, useful questions such as "Can God make a shapeless cube?"), but you would have to accept my premises for the proof to have any value. So how do you define omnipotence? As accidental, essential, or maximalist? I can argue the point from there from a logic and a theological point of view.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

> Just make sure you arent quoting Josephus, who spoke about Him 30 years afterwards


No, wrong I'm afraid. Josephus was a jewish scholar writing in 37AD. The writings of St Paul were in 60AD. But I'm suprised at you, as the writings of Josephus are sometimes used by Christians as the earliest contemporary 'evidence' of Jesus's existence. Apparently, what he said was:

"Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians so named after him, are not extinct this day."

Nowadays, only a handful of head-in-the-sand-theologans claim that the so-called Testimonium Flavianum which the above passage comes from, is genuine. Josephus was an orthodox Jew who cannot be expected to have written such obviously Christian words. If he did write them, and if he believed what they say, then why did he restrict his coverage of Jesus to this little parenthesis? Suprising wouldn't you say ?

It still baffles me why people trust the word of the bible, when it was written 2000 years ago, mistranslated and interpreted many many times, by people who had never even seen, met, or KNEW ANYONE who had met Jesus. It's like me writing a biography of someone I never knew who died 60 years ago. I mean, do you believe what you read in the tabloids ?

But with regards to 'god', can we just make sure we are talking about the same thing here. There are two things to remember when dealing or taking about the god-question. First, I need to know what you mean when you use the letter sequence g-o-d or utter the sound "gahd." Secondly, keep in mind that all you have is a claim -- a god-claim, absolutey nothing more. You can't allow the conversation/argument to degenerate into language that speaks of "God" as if She-He-It actually exists. You might as well be talking about a Giraffe, or car mechanics.

Quotes for you, from god's own manual:

DT 21:10-14 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to kidnap "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their trial wives. If, after having sexual relations, a man has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go."

But what about coverting thy neighbours wife and the sanctity of marriage?

DT 28:15, 30 If you do not obey the voice of the Lord, the Lord will cause another man to "lie with" your wife-to-be

That's not true is it. Or is it just a threat ?

And I can go on and on and on. Here are some particually good ones (which I guess we're just meant to take in 'historical context, yeah ?):

EX 22:16-17 An unbetrothed virgin is required to marry her seducer.

EX 22:29 Firstborn children should be sacrificed to the Lord.

LE 3:17 The eating of blood and fat are prohibited forever.

LE 12:2 A woman who has a child, especially a female child, is unclean and purification rites are required.

LE 15:5 Anyone who touches an unclean bed must bathe and is unclean until evening. (Perhaps this is the source of the Turin Shroud ?)

LE 15:6 Anyone who sits on anything that a person with a discharge sat on must wash his clothes and bathe, and is unclean until evening.

LE 15:7 Anyone who touches the skin of a person who has a discharge must wash his clothes and bathe, and is unclean until evening.

LE 15:8 Anyone who is spit upon by a person who has a discharge must wash his clothes and bathe, and is unclean until evening.

LE 15:16 When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body, and he is unclean until evening.

LE 15:18 When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe, and they are unclean until evening.

LE 15:19 A woman who is menstruating is unclean. Anyone who touches her is unclean.

LE 15:20 Anything which a woman who is menstruating sits on or lies on is unclean.

LE 15:21 Anyone who touches the bed of a woman who is menstruating must wash his clothes and bathe, and is unclean until evening.

LE 15:22 Anyone who touches anything which was sat upon by a woman who is menstruating must wash his clothes and bathe, and is unclean until evening.

LE 15:24 If a man lies with a woman who is menstruating and any of her discharge touches him, he is unclean for seven days. Any bed he lies on is also unclean.

LE 15:28 After her flow stops, a woman who was menstruating must count off seven days before she is considered clean again. On the eighth day, she must present two birds to the priest for an atonement for having had a menstrual discharge.

Etc, etc, etc.

What you are talking about seems to have nothing to do with your 'god', more to do with semantics, logic, and skeptical philosophy. What's that got to do with 'proving' the existence of your 'god/s' ? It's word play, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not trying to patronise you here, but if you really want to get into a debate about your god, then I suggest you get a basic understanding of logical reasoning and avoid intellectual fallacies.


----------



## Martinelv

.dg


----------



## Guest

I will debate you on this subject in the name of the lord Jesus. I hardly ever debate the bible to non believers, yet in this situation, where you are going too far in making comments about the bible that are so "off" from the point, I will have a debate. As long as you promise to keep emotion out of this, then I dont see why we can not have a friendly debate. Something is telling me that you are going to display emotional motive though...hmmm....what makes me think that?


----------



## Guest

oh and another thing...good google search man....why dont you form an opinion for yourself and try reading the bible YOURSELF before you bash it. peace.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
Okay Martin. I'm going to call you on this. You googled Josephus's name, didnt you? He didnt write it in 37 AD, that is, unless he was an exceptional childhood prodigy at the age of ONE. And the wording of his post, is no, probably not genuine. Its a combination of Josephus's original text, and a passage from Luke. And that passage is also from the Antiquities, which is considered to be an invaluable guide to Jewish history. Scholar's dont have their heads in the sand about it, Martin, but a couple of websites on google might...

Martin, martin, martin, martin....Of course I can talk about God as if He exists. Actually, out of the two of us, I have that distinct advantage. And dont get all shy about semantics on me now. These are usually what your arguments are based upon. Remember the "rock question"? I could swear that you said this was a simple proof, not a paragraph or two ago. Well, you want to deal with proofs, logic, and semantics, then lets use proof, logic, and semantics. I know that they really arent the strong suit of pop atheism - it just regurgitates old arguments without even studying their basis in thought. But maybe you can help me brush up on my logical reasoning. So what'll it be, Martin - essential, accidental, or maximalist? You can google these this time....

Peace
Homeskooled
PS- Fair is fair. When I say God, I mean the Catholics one. And I'm not impressed with the Bible quotes, Martin. I now know that sitting on a chair a woman menstruates on is dirty, and I should wash myself. Although, come to think of it, I already knew that. So where's the lie?


----------



## Guest

Your intelligence surpasses me Homeskooled....great post.


----------



## Guest

Hey, Martin, you ever read Dostoevsky?


----------



## falling_free

http://www.wernhamhogg.eclipse.co.uk/ar ... stians.mov

I think you'll like this video clip about christians (quicktime) Martinelv

and no before anyone says so, it is not christian bashing its *humour*


----------



## Martinelv

I love it. Thank you. You have reaffirmed my 'faith' in the faithfull. If there is one thing you religio have in common, it is the assumption that all us poor atheists (or anyone else, for that matter) that doesn't believe in your imaginary friend, has to be an uneducated fool. I mean, what would us morons do without Google ??? I nearly didn't rise to the bait, as used to it as I am, but I will this time - for completeness sake. So:

I have read the bible many, many tedious, horrific times. I didn't even have to use Google. Clever boy eh ? !!! At university (where I gained an honours, and later did a post-graduate doctorate) I was a member of the debating society, where pre-christian scholastic theology was a popular discussion. Initially I was god/s-agnostic, but developed my ideas (with the aid of a search engine of course) after reading Aquinas (who, incidently, as you quote so much, was a Catholic theologian who stated that faith and reason are the same thing. Go figure.), Keirgarrd, and so on. I chaired a meeting on whether the furore of Shelly's (a poet apparently, according to Google) 'The Neccessity of Atheism' was justified, and other debates with discussion topics such as Camus's (I thought it was a hump-backed desert mammal till I looked him up on the web) statement that 'Religion is philosophical suicide'. That sort of thing. I'm also a member of many atheistic (hiss) discussion forums, and have to deal with many death-threats and bible thumping drivel on a nearly daily basis.

So there you go. Apologies for my emotion, which I'm sure you'll agree is strange coming from an emotionless, immoral atheist such as myself. Just one more thing before I go and burn some kittens and molest some children....

..you've never answered any of my questions. None ! You keep going on about me having to disprove your god/s existence while forgetting that that the burden of proof is on you. If I stated that there was an invisible leprachaun under my bed, the burden would be on me to prove it. You say,'Jesus exists', I say - prove it. Unlike yourself, I would never dare to state 100% that your god/s do definately not exist, because I am unable to prove it, but it's not my problem, it's your's. I really don't care if you believe it god/s, in fact if it helps you get through the day - great, but if you are going to try and prove, or at least put doubts in my mind, you'd be better advised not to resort to thinly veiled accusations and word play. But, in the tradition of your chuch (not!), I forgive you.

:wink:


----------



## Martinelv

Privateer - yes I have. I've read most of his stuff, Crime and Punishment, The Double, House of the Dead. Still got to plough through some of his heftier stuff though.

Incidently, if you type 'God' into Google and press <enter> on the compooter keybird, you can't imagine the filth you get back. I'm hooked !! Give it a try !


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
Its quite alright. I dont doubt that you know your Bible verses fairly well. You'll have to take that debate up with Robbie. I do, however, doubt that you were familiar with Flavius Josephus, as you clearly gave me the date of his birth, which would easily come up on a quick google search. As for your resume, yes, quite impressive. I too have a resume, but as Aquinas said, appeals to authority are always the weakest. My greatest academic boon was being homeschooled. In ninth grade, my history book was a text which gave arguments on topics such as the existence of God, death, and forms of government. What was unusual about it was the format - on each page was given an argument for or against each topic by four philosphers. Usually it was Nietsche, Aquinas, Descarte, and Pascal. I was taught other things, but the way my debating skills are honed now is in my "home away from home" here at college. Philosophical debate is our bread and butter, amongst my friends. We can be up until 2:00 in the morning at times, debating documents and oligarchies.

But on to your objections....


> So there you go. Apologies for my emotion, which I'm sure you'll agree is strange coming from an emotionless, immoral atheist such as myself.


No, Martin, it may surprise you, but I view you as quite the opposite of emotionless. :wink: When I stated that pop atheism's strong suits are not logic, proofs, or semantics, I meant it. Sure, it starts out with "proofs", but in the end, its the emotion, the vitreol, which rises up and expects to win the argument. This is usually the pattern which your arguments follow, at least. 


> you've never answered any of my questions. None !


Tsk, tsk, Martin! And I thought you were a debater! Lets reminisce about some of the previous questions I didnt answer, shall we....


> Ha ha !!! Pop atheism !! What's that ? Disbelieving to a good dance beat ?


Ouch! The sarcasm was stinging there! I think I replied that


> No, pop atheism is not a dance. No, scratch that, it is.


Okay, maybe not my wittiest remark, but it is a bit of a tapdance. Next...


> Nowadays, only a handful of head-in-the-sand-theologans claim that the so-called Testimonium Flavianum which the above passage comes from, is genuine. Josephus was an orthodox Jew who cannot be expected to have written such obviously Christian words. If he did write them, and if he believed what they say, then why did he restrict his coverage of Jesus to this little parenthesis? Suprising wouldn't you say ?


 Well, no, not very surprising Martin. I'm not sure, but I think I replied....


> Okay Martin. I'm going to call you on this. You googled Josephus's name, didnt you? He didnt write it in 37 AD, that is, unless he was an exceptional childhood prodigy at the age of ONE. And the wording of his post, is no, probably not genuine. Its a combination of Josephus's original text, and a passage from Luke. And that passage is also from the Antiquities, which is considered to be an invaluable guide to Jewish history. Scholar's dont have their heads in the sand about it, Martin, but a couple of websites on google might...


Next we have a question which doesnt actually have much to do with the debate about whether omnipotence is possible, but true to form, tends to get just a little bit emotional. The first point is a question, the second a non-sequitur about God being giraffe-like. Lets take a look....


> But with regards to 'god', can we just make sure we are talking about the same thing here. There are two things to remember when dealing or taking about the god-question. First, I need to know what you mean when you use the letter sequence g-o-d or utter the sound "gahd." Secondly, keep in mind that all you have is a claim -- a god-claim, absolutey nothing more. You can't allow the conversation/argument to degenerate into language that speaks of "God" as if She-He-It actually exists. You might as well be talking about a Giraffe, or car mechanics.


Homeskooled, who obviously doesnt like answering questions, replies....



> Fair is fair. When I say God, I mean the Catholics one.


Ah, now we get to the meaty ones. No, they dont have much to do with academics. Not much to do with the original argument. Dont know much about omnipotence arguments but want to make belief in God look dumb? Well, there's always a rough passage from the Old Testament to pull out. Sure, it isnt really the ones you promised to everyone. Not much in them with God lying, but they sure do have an emotional appeal, dont you think? And thats our (pop atheism's) strong point. Sure we might be losing the academic argument, but isnt religion just silly? Should Homeskooled take the bait?



> DT 21:10-14 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to kidnap "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their trial wives. If, after having sexual relations, a man has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go."
> 
> But what about coverting thy neighbours wife and the sanctity of marriage?
> 
> DT 28:15, 30 If you do not obey the voice of the Lord, the Lord will cause another man to "lie with" your wife-to-be
> 
> That's not true is it. Or is it just a threat ?


Well, luckily, these arent the rougher of the Old Testament passages that Martin could have pulled out. 
Now, Martin, I really cant see those two passages as proof that God lies. The Jews allowed divorce- actually, so does most of Christianity. And in this passage, it explains that the woman must first mourn. I'm betting her husband is not amongst the land of the living, Martin. As for losing your fiancee, well, yeah, thats rough. But its just one of about 60 consequences for disobeying the Lord. Names of the chapters in this book are Exile, Invasion and Siege, Fruitless Labor, Plagues, and Past Favors Recalled. Would these things actually happen to the Chosen People if they broke the covenant? I know your in a lot of suspense Martin, but you may want to take another "hideous" read of your Bible to find out. I wont spoil the surpise for you, as I'm much too interested in questions like, "Is Omnipotence possible?", and " Will Martin EVER tell me whether he believes in essential, accidental, or maximalist omnipotence?"

Lastly Martin, your Aquinas made a very clear distinction between faith and reason. Reasoning, as St. Thomas says, is a defect of intellect. True, in certain acts our mind functions as intellect; there are immediate truths (?mesa) and first principles (archa?) which we intuite or grasp with our intellect; and in such verities there can be no deception or error. But reasoning is always fallible. Faith is" the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God". Faith beleives that in Divine Revelation Truths are revealed which cannot be ascertained by reasoning alone, but will only complement, not contradict it. So while one must accept the first premise of any argument based on faith, once argued, it will hold intellectual water, so to speak, if it is based in truth. And in any argument such as this, the burden of proof is on both of us. I must prove that your leprechaun does not exist, you must prove that he does. Unfortunately, first premises must be accepted, not proven. Which is why I am trying to pry away from you a premise on which to discuss omnipotence's merits. Good luck, Martin, I'll be waiting.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

Hello. Thanks for your reply.

At the risk of this descending into a slanging match, can I first say that my prime objective on this board is for the elimination of DP. I hate it. It sticks in my throat, so if you are still suffering then I wish with all my heart that you find a way through it. Despite our differences, I really mean that. And if your god is part of your recovery, then good for you.

However, back to the debate.

Thank you for, firstly, taunting me into revealing that I am not uneducated, and then using my rebuttal against me - as if I were trying to prove myself. I knew it would happen, but there you go.



> doubt that you were familiar with Flavius Josephus


This is true. I've never met him, or Jesus, or St Paul, or anyone connected with the Jesus-myth. And you're right, I'm not familiar with his life or history - but I am familiar with all I need to be in response to this conversation - his quote regarding Jesus. I've know about it for years and wrote an article on a Atheism website entitled 'The Josephus Ruse'. And yes, 37AD was his date of birth. So ?



> When I stated that pop atheism's strong suits are not logic, proofs, or semantics, I meant it. Sure, it starts out with "proofs", but in the end, its the emotion, the vitreol, which rises up and expects to win the argument. This is usually the pattern which your arguments follow, at least


This is a quite astonishing statement. Firstly, Atheism means 'lack of theism', A-Theism, lack of belief. That's all. I never ever, and never would, stated that I have 'proofs' for the non-existence of your god, because as you know all too well, it is impossible. And for a start, I do not have to provide any 'proofs' because, and I'll say it again, the burden is on you, because you are stating a claim. And what's wrong with emotion and vitreol ? If you've spent your life gasping at the grotesque lies and bigotry of organised religion, it is suprising I get a little upset ? Was it Neitzche (I'll look it up on google later) who said, Ecce ****, human, all too human ? I'm sure you'll put me right.

The hypocrisy is your statement is flabbergasting. You dare to accuse me of lacking in proofs, when you, and the religious in general, have NEVER, EVER provided a single scrap of 'proof' to back up your god claim. None whatsoever. Nothing other than objective experience and terrible lies and distortions about evolution, and devious concoctions to try and explain away 2000 years of science and discovery. Amazing.

Next bit. When I talked about god being a liar, I was refering to the unending catalouge of 'lies' in the bible itself. Because, let's face it, unless we hear from the big man himself, that's all we've got to go on. No doubt, however, that you snub the old testament for being nothing more than an historical (cough) document, thus neatly circumventing the really nasty stuff.



> "Is Omnipotence possible?", and " Will Martin EVER tell me whether he believes in essential, accidental, or maximalist omnipotence?"


I have answered this. No, omnipotence is not possible, for the reasons I stated. You may think it's a trick, but it's a simple fact. If your god is somehow 'beyond' simple human understanding of omnipotence, as you seem to be suggesting, then why bother even trying to argue the point, because by it's very nature, as a human, it would be beyond you ? You seem to regard omnipotence as a get out clause to difficult questions that us scum bags (whoops, watch the vitreol Martin) use. Tis much easier to resort to this than reason, as an Ostrich could demonstrate. Accidental omnipotence ? Wha ?



> Faith is" the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God.


Cop out #2. What divine truth ? Who's god ? You can't use this as an argument when you haven't even provided evidence of these 'truth's' or 'god/s'.



> Reasoning, as St. Thomas says, is a defect of intellect.


Well, if St. Thomas, the zealous medieval Catholic theologian said so, then that's that. Incredible !!! But really, how so ? Did faith create that computer you're using to type on ? If so, where can I buy one ? Reasoning is all we have, and it's a terrible shame that you are disregarding 3 billion years of evolution that has allowed you to 'reason', in favour of simple, blind (was ever a word so appropriate ?) faith. If we didn't learn to 'reason' then we'd still be sitting in caves shivering at god's anger whenever there was a thunderstorm. I take it then that you disregard reason when you go to cross a busy road ? Or are you saying that reason is pointless when attempting to comprehend your god/s ? If so, well, that's pretty convienient wouldn't you say ? Children do something similar when confronting them with something they've lied about. Either they cry and stamp their feet until the accuser goes away, or flatly deny it, inspite of the staggering array of 'proof'.

Reasoning isn't a defect of intellect, faith is. The analogy between faith and mental illness, or rather, disfunction of the intellect, is obvious. It's the Opium of the People, according to Google. It's so strikingly obvious that even the contemporary church regards the bible as little more than a metaphor. I swear, if modern religion takes one more step backwards in the face of reality (as they've been doing since people threw off the shackles of religious dogma, despite threats of torture and eternal damnation), then it will fall off the cliff of humanity. It's going to happen, I'm sure of it - they surely can't back off any further without throwing their hands up and admitting it's all bullshit, and when that happens I hope I'm around to see it. The world will be a better place without it. People don't need 'god/s' to be happy or moral, despite what you may think. And it's a hideous, evil, disgusting thing to say otherwise. By simply stating that the godless are somehow unworthy, condems the religious, each and every one of them who says it, to the lowest form of pond life. How they sleep at night amazes me.

If you say that reasoning is a defect of intellect, then you are either a liar (because you use reasoning every day) or are so spectacually deluded that arguing (reasoning) otherwise is pointless.



> Unfortunately, first premises must be accepted, not proven


Even if the premise if based on nothing except faith ? OK then, fine. As long as YOUR first premises are the right ones, yeah ? If that were the case, we'd still be thinking that the world was flat.



> Good luck, Martin, I'll be waiting.


Thank you. I hope I've done alright this time.


----------



## Martinelv

Also, at the risk of sounding churlish, I'd like to make this comparison:

Let's, for a moment, pretend that this Jesus guy actually did walk the earth. There is no evidence for this, but for aguments sake let's say he did. Let's look at his characteristics:

Jesus.

Heard voices
Has 'visions'
Thought he was the son of god
Claimed to be able to perform miracles
Had complexes about women, sex, food etc.
Spurned possessions

Now let's look at someone else:

A man with schizophrenia

Hears voices
Has 'Visions'
Thinks he is the son of god
Claims to be able to perform miracles
Has complexes about women, sex, food etc.
Spurned possessions, lives like a tramp

Is this a reasonable comparison to make ?


----------



## Guest

1) Martin, Yeshua Ben Yousef (sp?) did walk the Earth, but
2) The account of his life was written by others. Other than what is written in direct quotes, little is known about Him. He did not 'claim' to do miracles, He merely did or did not. He was probably short, swarthy and with a thin beard.

3) God is a riddle with no satisfactory answer.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
Thank you. Fortunately, no, I am not suffering from DP at the moment, and God didnt bring me out of it. Unfortunately, I am having other health problems, so I couldnt respond to this post as quickly as usual as I was at the hospital getting some tests done. I am now back home chomping on a donut in front of my computer screen, enjoying some philosophical R and R....Now, on to your post....

Like I said Martin, I dont doubt that you're educated, that you know Bible verses, that you can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. I just doubt that you know much about Josephus Flavius. I think it speaks to the kind of people you debate , Christian and atheist alike, if none of them as of yet have pointed out errors in your sources. When I said that Josephus wrote the Antiquities in the 60s, you replied



> No, wrong I'm afraid. Josephus was a jewish scholar writing in 37AD.


Now if I didnt know better, this would have had its intended "awww" factor, and your arguments would seem well thought out and researched. But I do happen to know better.



> I've know about it for years and wrote an article on a Atheism website entitled 'The Josephus Ruse'. And yes, 37AD was his date of birth. So ?


Now thats an interesting response to being wrong, Martin. I'm looking at your post, and I'm seeing that children, when confronted with the fact that they may have lied, will flatly deny it. I think you should add a shrug of the shoulders, and "So?" to that list. It does have a great deal to do with the argument, as the date of his writing was the bone of contention. An accurate date(1) Shows how closely he lived to the time of Christ (2) It illustrates how the superimposition of Luke's Gospel was possible, and (3) Lends creedence to the accuracy of your quotes. It also brings up a good question - do your really know your stuff as well as you say you do, and are other "factual" statements you've made also fraught with error? Which brings me to my next point.



> The hypocrisy is your statement is flabbergasting. You dare to accuse me of lacking in proofs,


No Martin, I'm not just daring to say it, you ARE lacking in proofs. This post has been quite an epiphany for me, and I'm glad you wrote it. When this thread began, it began with two proofs and one question - that question was how do people justify omnipotence, and the proofs were the rock that could not be lifted and the deity/choice paradox. I stepped in to explain the solutions to the two paradoxes/proofs, and offered to debate more of them with you. But it isnt that you wont come up with any more proofs - its that you cant. You dont have anything in your arsenal to deal with logic or philosophy. You dont understand what you beleive or the school of thought behind it. Just like some of the Christians you ridicule, you chose the belief - atheism - which you liked, and then reductively reasoned a justification for it. Usually, you portray atheism as the intellectual's choice. But when confronted with intellectual arguments, an odd sort of defensive dance ensues...

And in the Beginning, the words were Martin's.....

Martin :


> It [ the rock paradox] is a simple proof that nothing and nobody can be completly omnipotent.





> I'm not trying to patronise you here, but if you really want to get into a debate about your god, then I suggest you get a basic understanding of logical reasoning and avoid intellectual fallacies.


Homeskooled :" Well, gee whiz Martin, I'll try real hard to debate you using good reason and avoiding intellectual fallacies. So what kind of premise are you basing your omnipotence proofs on - accidental, essential, or maximalist?"

Martin :


> I never ever, and never would, stated that I have 'proofs' for the non-existence of your god, because as you know all too well, it is impossible.


Homeskooled :" B-b-but I thought you just used a proof, Martin? Dont you want to debate anymore? What rules do you want to debate by?"

Martin :


> I do not have to provide any 'proofs' because, and I'll say it again, the burden is on you, because you are stating a claim.


Homeskooled :" Gee, that doesnt sound like a debate to me....You mean you can ask me to prove anything I say, but I just have to listen to you? Wont you just tell me if you believe in accidental omnipotence, Mr. Martin?"

Martin :


> Accidental omnipotence ? Wha ?


You see, it had seemed very odd to me at first, that you had this definition of atheism which seemed to be all your own. I hadnt heard it from any of the atheists in my philosophy department - its not the real definition of atheism. Its a little like the definition of nihilism. But I kept wondering why you made it a point to preface all of your statements with this definition, almost in a defensive way. Then after reading your post today, I put two and two together. It was a defensive move. You couldnt argue your point successfully, so you had to change the very definition of your belief to give you a way out. My guess is you were probably cornered once on an atheism board, and a "bible thumper" asked you why he had to give all the proofs - after all, your just as much a believer in something as he is. How to circumvent that argument? How do you insulate yourself against that? You hadnt thought through proofs up until that point. Emotion had gotten you to become an atheist, and you had to rationalize your beliefs. But how do you get out of having to understand philosophical proofs? Argue that you dont have a belief - you have a "lack" of belief. You have nothing you have to prove. And it works...sometimes. Unless your talking to someone whose debated before. You can sound like you have arrived at this rational enlightened place, after long years of good, hard reasoning. But it is the same blind belief borne of the same blind emotion that brings some people to Christianity, and when the spotlight gets turned on your own proofs, or your lack thereof, you have to backpedal. You cant give the school of thought behind your statements - there is none. Where I come from, an academic setting, nihilists have to debate the same as everyone else. The people that beleive that the universe exists debate the people from the school of Descarte. This is how they retain their integrity and refine their beleifs. This is the way atheists defend their belief in a Godless world. In Pittsburgh, we have a saying :If you cant stand the heat, Martin, you have to get out of the kitchen.

I'll deal with your issues with Aquinas now. When you said


> Aquinas (who, incidently, as you quote so much, was a Catholic theologian who stated that faith and reason are the same thing. Go figure.)


I was aware that you were _again_ giving a misquote. My paragraph


> Lastly Martin, your Aquinas made a very clear distinction between faith and reason. Reasoning, as St. Thomas says, is a defect of intellect. True, in certain acts our mind functions as intellect; there are immediate truths (?mesa) and first principles (archa?) which we intuite or grasp with our intellect; and in such verities there can be no deception or error. But reasoning is always fallible. Faith is" the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God".


was taken almost directly from the Summa. It refutes your statement that he thought reason and faith were the same, and does not stand as a proof. I do, however, agree with Thomas that reason is an imperfection of the intellect. It would be much easier if we could intuite _amesa_ or have infused knowledge, rather than relying on reason, which can arrive at false conclusions, to find answers.

Lastly, as I dont think I have much more to add to this thread, I will try to explain the differences between maximalist, essential, and accidental omnipotence, in case anyone is still wondering. All things in existence, both living and inanimate, have natures and attributes. Maximalist omnipotence defines all- powerful as more powerful than anything else in existence. So a being with the attribute of maximalist omnipotence is not infinitely powerful - just the greatest example of the attribute possible. This is a definition that Aristotle would probably agree with, and an example would be Zeus of the Greek gods, and even some Christians agree with this. Whether or not this god can lift something he creates doesnt negate his omnipotence - his power is the greatest, not infinite. Accidental omnipotence means that the god's infinite power is not _essential_ to his nature. He can pick it up and drop it just as we can decide to be "nice" or "mean" This god can choose to be infinitely powerful, create an infinite rock, then lose his power, and become unable to grasp it. Of course, the god can then become all-powrful again, if he chooses, just like we can have a change of heart. This is an attribute of some Hindu gods, and some of the Greek gods. Lastly is essential omnipotence, in which being infinitely powerful is inseperable to his nature. This is the most logical but least forgiving form of omnipotence to argue. I wont go into it here, but if anyone really, really wants some paradoxes and their solutions, I'll give them. But I dont think that they will be of much use to you Martin. Its been good arguing with you, but I believe my work in this thread is done, and I recommend that you argue with some more learned theists than you're accustomed to - it'll refine your beliefs, your arguments, and your sources.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

Hiya,

Well I hoe your physical problems aren't too nasty and that you get well soon. I've got 'man flu' (see, a minor cold), and boy - doesn't everyone around me know about it.



> Its been good arguing with you, but I believe my work in this thread is done,


I too am loosing the will to live now. Although you may think your 'work' has proved a point, to me we are just going around in circles. My main axis of the discussion was that because you are making a god-claim, the burden of proof is on you, not me, because I'm not making a claim. Atheism is not a claim. It is a lack of a claim. A lack of something. And since you haven't provided any proof for you god, then we're left with 'faith' and semantics, and appeals to old philosophers. So we'll leave it there.


----------



## sleepingbeauty

Martinelv said:


> Ha ha !!! Pop atheism !! What's that ? Disbelieving to a good dance beat ?


martin you slay me. :lol: :lol: :lol:

this is an interesting thread. im too tired to dive too deep into it but here is my 2 cents. i went to christian school. i was baptized and "born again" at the age of 10. i spent a good deal of my growing up years involved completely in the church and all its youth functions. but over time Jesus began to plague my life in the form of OCD. everything i did made me look over my shoulder to see if satan was going to take me down to his infernal underworld of torture and lust where i would be eternally sodomized with a chainsaw. but thats just half of why i turned my back on the church (mind you i didnt say GOD. i said THE CHURCH. HUGE HUGE HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE DIFFERENCE!!! which is where the confusion lies people.)

the second reason is i started to see 'through' the sweet and delectable fluffy frosting at what lied undernieth.. a cake make of complete and utter SHAT.  the more i read the bible the less sense it made to me as i experienced more and more REALITY as i got older. how come the man sitting in the clouds with the white beard isnt throwing down lightning bolts to strike my pain away through my upraised palms as i sing out praises in his name?? no matter how loud i sing 'KING OF KINGS! LORD OF LORDS!" life still sucks. my dad still drinks and beats my mom and me and f#cks all the horny church sluts. the pastor is still telling my mom she needs to be subservient to her man. my teachers are still telling me that the earth was put here for humans to consume because god made man in his image and blah blah. animals dont go to heaven because they are dumb and have no souls. why would i want to go to a place like that? full of a bunch of human bible bashing snobs who thinks they sh!t passionfruit sorbet and are somehow more 'BLESSED' then the rest of humanity? no thank you.

thats when i say.. take this job and shove it! i aint workin here no more. :evil:


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Sleepingbeauty, 
I take it from what your saying then that you beleive in God and dont really think that Church-people are in touch with him. You know, I actually completely agree with you about that. I hate being around church people. This is actually a sore spot between myself and my roommates, but I really cant take most of the "religious" college kids we know. Not only do they never do anything which doesnt have to do with religion, which just makes them boring, but they have the worst kind of snobbery - spiritual pride. In some circles at our College Catholic Newman Center, I'm not well liked. I think that they see me as a bit too flippant (I joke around alot) about relgious matters, and quite honestly, they look down their noses at me. There are others who would never make it in a regular college club, but they're rich kids, and needed to feel elite, so they hang around up there. It may interest you, but we have an Oxford Rhodes Scholar with ADD, and it blows my mind how this kid got the scholarship, because you could really kick his rear end in a debate, Malia. But he probably has one of the worst combinations of religious and rich kid snobbery I've ever seen. And these kinds of people either snub or turn off the truly good-hearted college students who come by. Its such a shame. As for not getting your prayers answered, I dont either, but it doesnt really affect my belief. The morals make sense to me, his attributes can be easily defended - I just dont think divine intervention is a rule of thumb around the universe. I think God gave us the raw materials, and we have to create what we can. I think he might answer prayers in subtle ways, like softening someone's hearts, or having you run into someone in the most unlikely of places who you needed to meet. It happens to me all the time. The worst things in life are usually the ones that go exactly according to my plans.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## JAG

It's one of those questions that can't be answered.


----------

