ARCHIVE: God's mass-murder in the flood
- Thread starter smothers
- Start date
I am not sure I would state it the way you did but I do agree.
Which should make us all wonder why you were semi mocking me for asserting that omnipotence has logical limitations.
You have now agreed with this concept in that if God can give away power.... and therefore the "all power" doesn't necessarily mean "all power" since now another entity might have some of it.
Yet omnipotence actually should be understood to mean "nothing MORE powerful" - or all the power that God chooses to retain that is within His logical reality.
In other words.... if God is omnipotent then nothing is MORE powerful than Him. And He can do anything He chooses to do within His righteous character.
I never was a fan of the metric system.
You continue...
This is the very reason God left us His word.
Using God's word we can KNOW for certain what is a part of His righteous will.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: - 2Timothy 3:16
Quote:
In other words.... if God is omnipotent then nothing is MORE powerful than Him. And He can do anything He chooses to do within His righteous character.
-------
I think Taoist would agree with me on this. You can have two sets of infinite things, but one of those sets can be bigger than the other.
In other words.... if God is omnipotent then nothing is MORE powerful than Him. And He can do anything He chooses to do within His righteous character.
-------
I think Taoist would agree with me on this. You can have two sets of infinite things, but one of those sets can be bigger than the other.
smothers try hard to make a rational point..... please?
You and I are BOTH infinite beings for we will both live forever.
Yet one of us is probably bigger than the other.
So what?
And I rest my case as to why I call smothers names.
I better get some work done.... I will be back in a few hours.
taoist
New member
Umm, Knight? Does that verse apply to itself?
Okay, metric means measuring system, your ruler. I was approaching this discussion as an innocent trying to put aside my prior knowledge to see if I wouldn't find something different. But you've really said what I would have expected you to say. Your metric is the bible. In choosing which of two action is "better," you "measure" them by how closely they come to actions approved by your scripture. I was actually hoping for something more.
Yet were I to use the standard of your bible without acknowledging belief in your god, I could still make the same decisions using the same reasoning. This is what I meant about the metric being independent of the model. As the bible exists, and forgive me for saying it, a righteous life relative to the natural world is possible without accepting the existence of god.
Understand I'm arguing only the logic, not the truth. I really don't know the answers. But then again, I don't believe you do either, except perhaps "super-rationally."
Okay, metric means measuring system, your ruler. I was approaching this discussion as an innocent trying to put aside my prior knowledge to see if I wouldn't find something different. But you've really said what I would have expected you to say. Your metric is the bible. In choosing which of two action is "better," you "measure" them by how closely they come to actions approved by your scripture. I was actually hoping for something more.
Yet were I to use the standard of your bible without acknowledging belief in your god, I could still make the same decisions using the same reasoning. This is what I meant about the metric being independent of the model. As the bible exists, and forgive me for saying it, a righteous life relative to the natural world is possible without accepting the existence of god.
Understand I'm arguing only the logic, not the truth. I really don't know the answers. But then again, I don't believe you do either, except perhaps "super-rationally."
I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
It seems that we are equating all-powerful with "infinite". You stated that if God is omnipotent then nothing can be more powerful than him. If there are two beings with infinite power, according to number theory one of those two being's infinite power could be more than the other's Your statement
if God is omnipotent then nothing is MORE powerful than Him.
is demonstrably false.
By the way, you should really stop the silly name-calling, it makes you look like a grade-schooler.
It seems that we are equating all-powerful with "infinite". You stated that if God is omnipotent then nothing can be more powerful than him. If there are two beings with infinite power, according to number theory one of those two being's infinite power could be more than the other's Your statement
if God is omnipotent then nothing is MORE powerful than Him.
is demonstrably false.
By the way, you should really stop the silly name-calling, it makes you look like a grade-schooler.
taoist
New member
Knight;
And I rest my case as to why I call smothers names.
taoist;
Don't blame him for confusing a mathematical model with your god. He's quite correct in the mathematics. Any god modeled as an infinite structure can be used to construct a greater god. The usual method is to construct the superset, the set of all subsets. The resulting superset has a larger cardinality.
(Cardinals are to the size of infinite sets what whole numbers are to the size of finite sets. The cardinality of a set is its cardinal.)
And I rest my case as to why I call smothers names.
taoist;
Don't blame him for confusing a mathematical model with your god. He's quite correct in the mathematics. Any god modeled as an infinite structure can be used to construct a greater god. The usual method is to construct the superset, the set of all subsets. The resulting superset has a larger cardinality.
(Cardinals are to the size of infinite sets what whole numbers are to the size of finite sets. The cardinality of a set is its cardinal.)
Knight does not agree that name-calling is always inappropriate. Haven't you figured that out by now? God calls people names at times. Knight is following His example.
If you find name-calling so reprehensible, why did you just call him silly and compare him to a grade-schooler?
I'm not sure I would use the God of the Bible as a good role model for social behavior!
Under normal circumstances in social discourse adults do not resort to name calling. I'm making an obvious point that mature people do not normally and consistently use it in normal conversations.
Under normal circumstances in social discourse adults do not resort to name calling. I'm making an obvious point that mature people do not normally and consistently use it in normal conversations.
taoist
New member
smothers;
By the way, you should really stop the silly name-calling.
taoist;
By all means, let's improve the quality of our name calling.
:turbo:;
Knight does not agree that name-calling is always inappropriate.
taoist;
But he makes exceptions for people like :BillyBob:, :Tye:, :lucky:, and :crow:, not to mention :sibbie: and :turbo: who we get to call by their avatars.
By the way, you should really stop the silly name-calling.
taoist;
By all means, let's improve the quality of our name calling.
:turbo:;
Knight does not agree that name-calling is always inappropriate.
taoist;
But he makes exceptions for people like :BillyBob:, :Tye:, :lucky:, and :crow:, not to mention :sibbie: and :turbo: who we get to call by their avatars.
Of course you wouldn't. But Knight would.
Knight does not always use name-calling in conversation. I have had many conversations with Knight and as far as I can recall he has never called me a name. He generally uses it only when the situation calls for it.
Like right now for instance: You say that one should not resort to name-calling. Then you called Knight a silly grade-schooler. It is therefore appropriate to call you a hypocrite.