Omnipotence of God

[Tormod]

...that is why it is called faith.

Yes. Faith is acceptable. But (well, this has been said a few times now) faith-based religion is not necessarily a bad thing for science. But it is not science.

 

Maybe it is not a proper topic to discuss on this forum, but if is not, then I would have to call into question even discussing the topic we started with. "Omnipotence of God" How can we fairly discuss a topic related to a concept about God when we can't acknowledge the possibility of his esixtence.

As the editor of this site, I'll say that every topic that is not in violation of our rules is acceptable. We were discussing the term "omnipotent" and how it proves or rules out the existence of a god.

 

I think we're having a good and fruitful discussion here - that's reason enough. :)

[Freethinker]

I have to say that I do agree with every point you all have made. I was just trying to express to Freethinker that I was not trying to prove that God exists, only proposing the possibility.

Yep. And I can propose that the universe was created by the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn. And I am equally allowed to claim and believe that as you are your god. But before I can use it here to explain something, I would need to provide some proof of the Great IPU's existence or you would most likely reject it out of hand. Would it be fair to expect less in the reverse?

I certainly can't prove that view to anyone, but I also can't escape the inner awareness that causes me to believe. It is on the face not a logical determination of evidence based on supposed facts, that is why it is called faith.

That again is a personal matter based on how much value you put on your life and as such how much proof you require for accepting things that guide it. Faith is what is used when there is a lack of facts for proof. I personally do not accept "belief" as a guide for anything. And I do not have "faith" in anything. Well except for when someone says "ewe that stinks!". :-)

How can we fairly discuss a topic related to a concept about God when we can't acknowledge the possibility of his esixtence.

Anything is possible. Well almost anything. But that does make it so.

 

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

 

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false... In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur.

 

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam

[Tormod]

And I do not have "faith" in anything.

Revising now, are we? It used to be "I don't believe in anything". :)

[infamous]

I can accept your nonfaith Freethinker, please accept may right to faith. I have nothing to offer you in the way of evidence, the only evidence that I have rests within my spirit. And that unfortunatly does not rise to the level of proof. Allow me to be a freethinker also. There are many things that we can not only, not prove, but hardly even imagine. Thats what makes the search for turth so interesting, we are always being supprised by something unexpected.

[Freethinker]

Revising now, are we? It used to be "I don't believe in anything". :)

Ya, trying to kill two birds. He mentioned both faith and belief. I usually use the smell thing for Faith and after first using it for belief, because I started as you mention, I decided to go for some consistancy. But not 100%!

 

Damn, busted!

[Freethinker]

I can accept your nonfaith Freethinker, please accept may right to faith.

I have never questioned your rights. And as you, need no acceptance for my stance. As I only accept things with valid proof behind them, thus have no need of "Faith" for things I accept.

I have nothing to offer you in the way of evidence, the only evidence that I have rests within my spirit.

spirit, something else you must relegate to "faith" rather than fact. Again, you have to decide how much value to assign to your life and your personal philosophy. If you are comfortable with things lacking factual support and find :faith" sufficient, that is your choice.

 

I do find it interesting that this is so common of an apology given here by "believers". That they feel the need to apologize for their lack of factual basis in thier lives. Especially when trying to deal with a fact based science site. Ah yes, cognitive dissonanse. Such a struggle.

 

But it is your struggle and as you say it is your choice to continue in that struggle. No apology needed.

Allow me to be a freethinker also.

A Freethinker not only does not need permission, it is contrary to it's very nature. So fire away!

There are many things that we can not only, not prove, but hardly even imagine.

Please give specific examples. Things that DO exist, but "we can not only, not prove, but hardly even imagine".

Thats what makes the search for turth so interesting, we are always being supprised by something unexpected.

A "search for turth" would require investigation. Rejection of or minimally a lack of demand for facts is hardly a valid investigation.

 

But as I have stated. You have to decide for yourself what your life is worth.

 

Perhaps you would find fewer suprises if you were more grounded in facts?

[Strange Visitor]

To be able to prove something, you have to be able to state a falsifiable hypothesis. For example: All crows are black is falsifiable since it's possible to show that there could be a non-black crow. Until that crow is found, the all black theory stands.

 

To prove there is a god as creator (or whatever), you have to state a "null" hypothesis that no god was involved in the process. Since all the evidence supports the null hypothesis, then there is no alternative theory to prove. But since religious notions are metaphysical and do not require evidence, proof does not apply..

 

For every system you have to see deeply what it holds. If this world is based on energy (i.e. we take energy release energy) then ther must be a pure energy existed to creat the universe and that is what we call god. and this what ligic and science says.

[Freethinker]

For every system you have to see deeply what it holds. If this world is based on energy (i.e. we take energy release energy) then ther must be a pure energy existed to creat the universe and that is what we call god. and this what ligic and science says.

Few people would suggest that their god is nothing more than non-intellectual, undirected "pure energy". That is the ONLY kind science or logic would support. A far cry from the personal intellectual entity that intentionally designed and created the universe, as is the typical ramblings.

 

But if your idea of god is nothing more than random arbitrary undirected energy, that's fine.

 

One problem. The total sum of energy for the entire universe is ZERO. While there may be local fluctuations/ petributions or as Feynman suggests, borrowing energy from the past or future for short duration, which result in an unbalance of energy, overall the sum total is zero, equilibrium, stasis.

 

Thus your god would be ZERO energy. Nothing.

 

The plus side is your god would not be asking for money from us every weekend!

[infamous]

Freethinker; I fear that your brittleness might cause you to crack. Loosen up a bit. I'm not trying to be disagreeable here.

[IrishEyes]

Freethinker; I fear that your brittleness might cause you to crack. Loosen up a bit. I'm not trying to be disagreeable here.

 

Did you mean 'brittleness' or bitterness, infamous? He's been accused of both on more than one occasion. Of course, there are those of us around here that just love him for the prickly old pear of an atheist that he is!

[Freethinker]

Freethinker; I fear that your brittleness might cause you to crack. Loosen up a bit. I'm not trying to be disagreeable here.

Another common response from believers. Neither have I been disagreeable. Skeptical, always. critical? (as in questioning) part of being skeptical.

 

You keep repeating that you don't have to prove what you believe in. Even though I have never tried to force oyu to and in fact have repeatedly said you are free to believe what ever you wish.

 

But my lack of pushing you to prove your beliefs is taken as being "brittle"? OK then?!?

 

Believers are typically accustomed to certain levels and methods of communications, usually because they are surrounded by other forms of believers. Seldom anything involving detailed skeptisim or analysis. When confronted with it, they think it is a problem with the other person. This is nothing more than a personal prejudice and a lack of understanding of others. Calling me names and insulting me just shows the true mindset of the believer. But I am used to it. It is a regular occurance with newbie believers. As is attested to by:

Did you mean 'brittleness' or bitterness, infamous? He's been accused of both on more than one occasion.

Yes Irish, you ahve seen it many times also. If fact...

Of course, there are those of us around here that just love him for the prickly old pear of an atheist that he is!

 

Perhaps just as interestingly, seeing it work from the other way around. When someone gets to know me before we get into any "skeptical" discussions. I never get the "prickly" or "brittle" names until AFTER I dare question someone's desire to live based on beliefs and faith.

 

Like I said before. Cognitive Dissonance. It has that affect on people. And the reaction is inevitably aimed outward.

 

But hey, if it helps you release your tension.... Glad I could help!

[Freethinker]

Did you mean 'brittleness' or bitterness, infamous? He's been accused of both on more than one occasion. Of course, there are those of us around here that just love him for the prickly old pear of an atheist that he is!

And I thought your job was to stop people from calling others names. Not promote it?

[IrishEyes]

And I thought your job was to stop people from calling others names. Not promote it?

 

oh geez oh crow! Break, please? I'll take mine in the arm, if you don't mind! :)

 

don't use me to prove your points, especially when you KNOW my tongue is so far into my cheek it hurts :) ! jokes are not the same as insults, and you know it ;) . after spending countless months on the other end of your laughing-stick ;) , it's only fair to poke a little fun YOUR way now and again :) .

 

And besides, i DID say that some of "US" love you, which would indicate that *I* am part of them that do... ;)

 

(T, i adore these smilies)

[Tormod]

Hey FT, cheer up. Irish is throwing every single smilie at you and it eats our bandwidth. Accept that you are highly regarded and stop whining before we make your our "Resident (Touchy) Atheist". :)

[Tormod]

(T, i adore these smilies)

I particularly like this one:

 

:)

[Freethinker]

I apologize ;) as of course I am wrong. :) The site is much better served by blanket acceptance of unsupportable claims based on personal desires and refuting others by pointing out age:clock: and brittle bones.:) A much higher level of discourse than I can hope to offer.;)

 

Perhaps a better question for this thread than whether god can create a rock too large to lift, is whether our loving god can create a disastor that can violently kill more than the 160,000 his tsunami did? ;) My spirit tells me he can. And target those that refuse to acknolwedge him specifically! :D We need to make this site and the rest of the internet safe for faith based beliefs and believers! ;) not those other kind! :)

[infamous]

Casting dispersions upon someone or something that one doesn't believe in, smacks of an exercise in futility.