 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
_Ammon_
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Sep 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14th, 2009 05:21 am |
|
"For instance, excluding the account in Genesis, God will never know what it feels like to make a mistake. Right?"
Sounds like management most places I've worked. 
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14th, 2009 04:49 pm |
|
yoki wrote: I see no paradox in such a concept at all. This business of god lifting rocks is more silly than a paradox. For god to lift a rock, it is assumed that god has body like a human being, with muscle sinew and bone. It is also assumed that god is subject to gravity, for that is what gives a rock, with its mass, a weight. However, for fundies, who see god as a big powerful human being, sitting somewhere up in the clouds on a throne with a left and right side of the throne, this business about god lifting rocks is a real mind bender for them. So they assign it a big word (paradox) that they learned from folks who taught them about another big word, "context."
I don't believe most people ask the "rock" question literally. The question can be reworded as: "Can God create something indestructable and eternal that He cannot still destroy?" The same paradox exists.
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14th, 2009 05:01 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: yoki wrote: I see no paradox in such a concept at all. This business of god lifting rocks is more silly than a paradox. For god to lift a rock, it is assumed that god has body like a human being, with muscle sinew and bone. It is also assumed that god is subject to gravity, for that is what gives a rock, with its mass, a weight. However, for fundies, who see god as a big powerful human being, sitting somewhere up in the clouds on a throne with a left and right side of the throne, this business about god lifting rocks is a real mind bender for them. So they assign it a big word (paradox) that they learned from folks who taught them about another big word, "context."
I don't believe most people ask the "rock" question literally. The question can be reworded as: "Can God create something indestructable and eternal that He cannot still destroy?" The same paradox exists.
The greatest paradox of all would be: Can god not be god? This is a paradox to which I strongly hold as true, and is the key to all other paradoxes and silliness.
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14th, 2009 05:45 pm |
|
yoki wrote: The greatest paradox of all would be: Can god not be god? This is a paradox to which I strongly hold as true, and is the key to all other paradoxes and silliness.
Can God not be God? Why not? Can a king not be king? Of course he can if he abdicates.
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14th, 2009 05:57 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: yoki wrote: The greatest paradox of all would be: Can god not be god? This is a paradox to which I strongly hold as true, and is the key to all other paradoxes and silliness.
Can God not be God? Why not? Can a king not be king? Of course he can if he abdicates.
Ahhh but I adhere to god not being god. That is how all mysteries of creation are revealed.
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
_Ammon_
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Sep 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14th, 2009 10:12 pm |
|
Some might argue that we are "God not being God". 
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 02:08 am |
|
_Ammon_ wrote: Some might argue that we are "God not being God".
Well, Christianity has at least one precedence for this concept, and Hinduism has many more. But a Christian will say "duh?", and the Hindu will merely smile, and all the while, Brahman sleeps and dreams.
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
_Ammon_
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Sep 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 03:39 am |
|
| Depends on the Christian. Many Orthodox would get it.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 04:21 am |
|
Ronson wrote: I don't believe most people ask the "rock" question literally. The question can be reworded as: "Can God create something indestructable and eternal that He cannot still destroy?" The same paradox exists.
And if god truly is omnipotent, the answer is yes, he can. He can also destroy it.
Can God not be God? Why not? Can a king not be king? Of course he can if he abdicates.
If god and Jesus are truly one and the same, as the trinity teaches, then for about 30 years, god was both god and not god at the same time. Heck, if Jesus is still around, then the still is.
Easy peasy for an omnipotent being.
-- A2SG, omnipotent is as omnipotent does....
Last edited on Tue Sep 15th, 2009 04:25 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 02:48 pm |
|
_Ammon_ wrote: Depends on the Christian. Many Orthodox would get it.
True.
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 05:14 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Ronson wrote: I don't believe most people ask the "rock" question literally. The question can be reworded as: "Can God create something indestructable and eternal that He cannot still destroy?" The same paradox exists.
And if god truly is omnipotent, the answer is yes, he can. He can also destroy it.
The answer is also "no." If God can still destroy it then He was unable to make it "indestructable and eternal", hence not omnipotent.
|
met
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1500 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 05:39 pm |
|
yoki wrote: Ronson wrote: yoki wrote: I see no paradox in such a concept at all. This business of god lifting rocks is more silly than a paradox. For god to lift a rock, it is assumed that god has body like a human being, with muscle sinew and bone. It is also assumed that god is subject to gravity, for that is what gives a rock, with its mass, a weight. However, for fundies, who see god as a big powerful human being, sitting somewhere up in the clouds on a throne with a left and right side of the throne, this business about god lifting rocks is a real mind bender for them. So they assign it a big word (paradox) that they learned from folks who taught them about another big word, "context."
I don't believe most people ask the "rock" question literally. The question can be reworded as: "Can God create something indestructable and eternal that He cannot still destroy?" The same paradox exists.
The greatest paradox of all would be: Can god not be god? This is a paradox to which I strongly hold as true, and is the key to all other paradoxes and silliness. yeh, insightful point... it's all usually comes down to "can God resolve a logical contradiction?" . . and thus all very Aquinas
____________________
“Hum tum ek kamre meins band ho, aur chaabi kho jaaye”
-from Bobby
o Dir. Raj Kapoor. 1973. R.K. Films Ltd.
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 08:28 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Ronson wrote: I don't believe most people ask the "rock" question literally. The question can be reworded as: "Can God create something indestructable and eternal that He cannot still destroy?" The same paradox exists.
And if god truly is omnipotent, the answer is yes, he can. He can also destroy it.
The answer is also "no." If God can still destroy it then He was unable to make it "indestructable and eternal", hence not omnipotent.
But Ronson, the question posed is still silly rather than paradoxical. In god's creation, the very nature of it is through observation is that it constantly changes, nothing within it is eternal. God is the only eternal, and god is the only indestructible. Forcing such characteristics upon a created "thing" is impossible, e.g., if something is created, then it can not be eternal, for eternal means always was, and always will be.
We can not even compose a paradox, something that is logically contradictory, IF we understand the nature of this creation we are in, and IF we stop insisting upon looking at god as a limited being trapped with the confines of his very own creation.
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 10:41 pm |
|
yoki wrote: But Ronson, the question posed is still silly rather than paradoxical. In god's creation, the very nature of it is through observation is that it constantly changes, nothing within it is eternal. God is the only eternal, and god is the only indestructible. Forcing such characteristics upon a created "thing" is impossible, e.g., if something is created, then it can not be eternal, for eternal means always was, and always will be.
Replace "eternal" with "everlasting."
We can not even compose a paradox, something that is logically contradictory, IF we understand the nature of this creation we are in, and IF we stop insisting upon looking at god as a limited being trapped with the confines of his very own creation.
Well, certainly any of these paradoxical questions are premised on God having some humanlike qualities. They are just clever ways of posing the less-colorful question Met posed: "Can God resolve a logical contradiction?"
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16th, 2009 03:30 am |
|
Ronson wrote: yoki wrote: But Ronson, the question posed is still silly rather than paradoxical. In god's creation, the very nature of it is through observation is that it constantly changes, nothing within it is eternal. God is the only eternal, and god is the only indestructible. Forcing such characteristics upon a created "thing" is impossible, e.g., if something is created, then it can not be eternal, for eternal means always was, and always will be.
Replace "eternal" with "everlasting.
What comes into existence will perish. What is created, will come to an end. That is the nature of the existence we find ourselves in. There are only two things within this CREATION we live in that never perish, and one of them is change.
We can not even compose a paradox, something that is logically contradictory, IF we understand the nature of this creation we are in, and IF we stop insisting upon looking at god as a limited being trapped with the confines of his very own creation.
Well, certainly any of these paradoxical questions are premised on God having some humanlike qualities. They are just clever ways of posing the less-colorful question Met posed: "Can God resolve a logical contradiction?"
Correct, but I would take it even further saying that they are all premised on god being as limited as a human in time and space. But then, that IS the Christian god, who is, in my opinion, a false god.
But sure, if God is omnipotent, he can create a dry ocean right? Sure he can, as long is it is not an ocean filled with water - but if that is the case, then is it an ocean? Ahh, but a clever god would make an ocean filled with ice. But that would hardly be the Christian god being so clever. Just look as his alleged exploits in Genesis - he is a baffoon, by any standard.
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16th, 2009 04:34 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Ronson wrote: I don't believe most people ask the "rock" question literally. The question can be reworded as: "Can God create something indestructable and eternal that He cannot still destroy?" The same paradox exists.
And if god truly is omnipotent, the answer is yes, he can. He can also destroy it.
The answer is also "no." If God can still destroy it then He was unable to make it "indestructable and eternal", hence not omnipotent.
Nope.
See, omnipotent means he can do anything. Period. No qualifications.
Remember Matthew 19:26:
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
So, if god is omnipotent, he CAN make something totally and absolutely indestructable. And then he CAN destroy it. No problem.
-- A2SG, since when can god only do the possible things?
Last edited on Wed Sep 16th, 2009 04:35 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
met
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1500 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16th, 2009 02:47 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote:
-- A2SG, since when can god only do the possible things?
The question, tho, is can God do things that are not only impossible here in EVERY possible universe ... eg can God create a rock that is simultaneously A and not-A?
But then again, maybe those kinds of concepts don't even really mean anything, they're just pointless artifacts of language .. eg can God create a round square? ...
If he can't, does God's "inability" to create a round square make him less powerful? Maybe it just makes him seem less powerful to silly humans who want to believe, deep down, that just if they can manipulate the symbols they use to communicate their "inner worlds" among themselves in strange, empty and pointless ways, they're more powerful than God?
Last edited on Wed Sep 16th, 2009 02:48 pm by met
____________________
“Hum tum ek kamre meins band ho, aur chaabi kho jaaye”
-from Bobby
o Dir. Raj Kapoor. 1973. R.K. Films Ltd.
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16th, 2009 03:12 pm |
|
met wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote:
-- A2SG, since when can god only do the possible things?
The question, tho, is can God do things that are not only impossible here in EVERY possible universe ... eg can God create a rock that is simultaneously A and not-A?
But then again, maybe those kinds of concepts don't even really mean anything, they're just pointless artifacts of language .. eg can God create a round square? ...
If he can't, does God's "inability" to create a round square make him less powerful? Maybe it just makes him seem less powerful to silly humans who want to believe, deep down, that just if they can manipulate the symbols they use to communicate their "inner worlds" among themselves in strange, empty and pointless ways, they're more powerful than God?
Well, I guess god can't be out smarted, even if it is by himself. 
Edit add: Although god did do a good job of fooling himself with all the goings on behind the Atonement - that sacrifice of perfect blood even made him forget the sins of people, and that is quite an accomplishment for an omniscient being to do to himself - he must have used his omnipotence to thwart is very own omniscience. What a guy, that Judaeo-Christian god, eh?
Last edited on Wed Sep 16th, 2009 04:57 pm by yoki
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16th, 2009 05:22 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Nope.
See, omnipotent means he can do anything. Period. No qualifications.
Exactly. But since he failed to make something indestructable and eternal (because he can still destroy it) then he is not omnipotent. The logical contradiction is that the creation is either destructable or indestructable. To claim either one eliminates omnipotence, and to claim both is paradoxical.
Remember Matthew 19:26:
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
So, if god is omnipotent, he CAN make something totally and absolutely indestructable. And then he CAN destroy it. No problem.
-- A2SG, since when can god only do the possible things?
For God to perform logical contradictions would require He alter the reality that we know. If God alters our reality to make logical contradictions possible then the game is rigged. There are too many on/off, up/down, 1/0 states in our reality that are absolute and cannot be compromised. That is a condition of our reality.
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16th, 2009 06:07 pm |
|
Ronson wrote:
For God to perform logical contradictions would require He alter the reality that we know.
well stated... I completely agree
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
Current time is 09:08 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
|
