Honest questions for God

[sweetmoose 0]

You got my quote a little wrong UNFORMED, it actually goes like this,

If Chuck Norris was Jesus, he would have kicked ass for our sins, not died like a pussy - sweetmoose, aka Michael

Another good one, not religon related is,
To Chuck Norris, a crain kick is when he shoves a crain up your ass and gets a kick out of it - my buddy Quintion made that one up.

We die only once, but for such a very long time.

I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Either God is lying or Ghandi is and God cannot lie.

Who are you to impose limitations on God!

Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?

This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.
Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.
Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.
Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.
What the critics are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I love the way you guys just discard consistency for convenience. "The universe is so complex it must have had a cause, everything complex is caused by something!"
"God is complex."
"God doesn't need a cause!"

What has a painting got to do with how the painter came into existence? It just declares that he does in fact exist.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

I love the way you guys just discard consistency for convenience. "The universe is so complex it must have had a cause, everything complex is caused by something!"
"God is complex."
"God doesn't need a cause!"

What has a painting got to do with how the painter came into existence? It just declares that he does in fact exist.

If the universe is a painting, God would be a different painting.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Either God is lying or Ghandi is and God cannot lie.

Who are you to impose limitations on God!

Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?

That in no way addresses the question of whether god can do something like lie. It is about what would be physically possible for god do.

Try again.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Matter which does not exist cannot bring itself into existence.

Says who?

1st Law of Thermodynamics

No it doesn't.

First Law of Thermodynamics - Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.

[DSE 3]

For all the words and rhetoric, and the *most* obvious research that lies _exclusively_ in the writings or evidences of man, one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.
Your belief can exist on faith, and that's all that should matter to you, but faith is simply a conviction based on your own interpretations. Faith is borne exclusively from emotion, not logic.

God and Christianity are the dichotomy to intellect, fact, and the universe. What's striking and shocking at the same time, is the inability of *most* Christians to accept that there could be a combination of intellect and God. Jesus doesn't have to figure into the concept, and doesn't for the majority of the world. Jesus was just the local Elvis until someone in another country decided they needed to boost their Neilsen ratings 1500 years ago. For all the talk of "false prophets" that is tossed about, there is nothing more false than the concept of jesus as the literal son of God.
God cannot be substantiated by figures nor feelings.
On the other hand, the bible has shown to be discounted by historical and scientific evidence aside from logic and independent thought.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Matter which does not exist cannot bring itself into existence.

Says who?

1st Law of Thermodynamics

No it doesn't.

First Law of Thermodynamics - Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. God is neither matter or energy. He created both of those things just like he created the laws which govern them. He also created time. The Creator is above his creation. He's not part of his own creation. How could he be? That is illogical.

Quote

Contradicts your previous claim. If God is part of creation, he must have had a creator.

He's not. If I paint a painting, I'm not also the painting that I painted. I'm the painter. The painting is simply an expression of mine.

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Matter which does not exist cannot bring itself into existence.

Says who?

1st Law of Thermodynamics

No it doesn't.

First Law of Thermodynamics - Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. God is neither matter or energy. He created both of those things just like he created the laws which govern them. He also created time. The Creator is above his creation. He's not part of his own creation. How could he be? That is illogical.

Quote

Contradicts your previous claim. If God is part of creation, he must have had a creator.

He's not. If I paint a painting, I'm not also the painting that I painted. I'm the painter. The painting is simply an expression of mine.

If the existence of set Ao (the universe and all its rules, forces and particles) must imply the existence of creator Co, then the existence of set A1 = Ao Co must imply the existence of creator C1, ad infinitum. Simple math.

So either there's no creator, or an infinite number of creators, each more complex than the previous one.

ANd you really need to check up on the 1st Law.

[unformed 0]

Fixed ....

although I do think "kick ass for the Lord" sounds better .... it's also a reference to a scene in n early Peter Jackson film....

This ad space for sale.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

That in no way addresses the question of whether god can do something like lie. It is about what would be physically possible for god do.

Dude... It did address it. You may not agree with the logic but it does address it. Anyway, here's the specifics with regard to lying within what I posted above.

Quote

"God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature."

[hairyjuan 0]

False
Eevidence
Appearing
Real


the GODSPELL ACCORDING TO JOHN is provably not the eyewitness acount you believe it to be

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

That in no way addresses the question of whether god can do something like lie. It is about what would be physically possible for god do.

Dude... It did address it. You may not agree with the logic but it does address it.

Nope. The 'logic' presented was entirely to do with physical limitations. The lying part was shoehorned in where it really doesn't fit. Not to mention that it does not even say why lying is against Gods nature.

Apparently murder and genocide are excusable, so why would God never be able to justify lying? Remember, he works on levels that we can't possibly fathom - or so you've told me.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

If the existence of set Ao (the universe and all its rules, forces and particles) must imply the existence of creator Co, then the existence of set A1 = Ao Co must imply the existence of creator C1, ad infinitum. Simple math.

So either there's no creator, or an infinite number of creators, each more complex than the previous one.

There cannot be an infinite regression since that would require an infinite amount of time in the past. An infinite amount of time could never be traversed in order for us to be where we are. We exist, therefore, there had to be a cause sometime in the past that was not caused by anything.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

False
Eevidence
Appearing
Real

That's very clever.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

We exist, therefore, there had to be a cause sometime in the past that was not caused by anything.

How can you possibly think your way around holding us to that standard yet not your god and still believe you're making sense?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

If the existence of set Ao (the universe and all its rules, forces and particles) must imply the existence of creator Co, then the existence of set A1 = Ao Co must imply the existence of creator C1, ad infinitum. Simple math.

So either there's no creator, or an infinite number of creators, each more complex than the previous one.

There cannot be an infinite regression since that would require an infinite amount of time in the past. An infinite amount of time could never be traversed in order for us to be where we are. We exist, therefore, there had to be a cause sometime in the past that was not caused by anything.

Not true. The only explanation that does not defy logic is no creator was necessary.

You know, people much smarter than you or I have been trying for thousands of years to prove the existence of gods. EVERY ONE OF THEM failed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Nope. The 'logic' presented was entirely to do with physical limitations. The lying part was shoehorned in where it really doesn't fit. Not to mention that it does not even say why lying is against Gods nature.

What is known of God’s nature is described in the Bible. One of his attributes is that “He cannot lie.” (e.g. Titus 1:2)

Quote

Apparently murder and genocide are excusable, so why would God never be able to justify lying? Remember, he works on levels that we can't possibly fathom - or so you've told me.

Only the guilty think of judgment as extreme.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

We exist, therefore, there had to be a cause sometime in the past that was not caused by anything.

How can you possibly think your way around holding us to that standard yet not your god and still believe you're making sense?

Because it's logical?

[hairyjuan 0]

also 100% the truth about WHAT YOU PREACH.

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[JackC 0]

Quote

There cannot be an infinite regression since that would require an infinite amount of time in the past. An infinite amount of time could never be traversed in order for us to be where we are. We exist, therefore, there had to be a cause sometime in the past that was not caused by anything.

Good fucking grief, you just said that god is the uncaused cause and he has always existed. Either you have infinite time or you don't.

How can you not see the holes in this?

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We exist, therefore, there had to be a cause sometime in the past that was not caused by anything.

How can you possibly think your way around holding us to that standard yet not your god and still believe you're making sense?

Because it's logical?

Hahahaha.......

Man...people would pay good money to have the delusions you're having. You should extract the chemicals from your head and sell them in pill form. You'd make a killing in college campuses everywhere.

Or better yet, teach a course in advanced mathematical theory, which is the absolute basis of logic and everything. You seem to know a lot more about logic than my professors did.

This ad space for sale.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We exist, therefore, there had to be a cause sometime in the past that was not caused by anything.

How can you possibly think your way around holding us to that standard yet not your god and still believe you're making sense?

Because it's logical?

That is sooo not the answer!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Only the guilty think of judgment as extreme.

Only the terminally insane think of genocide as worse than lying.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Good fucking grief, you just said that god is the uncaused cause and he has always existed. Either you have infinite time or you don't.

How can you not see the holes in this?

Did I say we have infinite time? I think I said just the opposite. Infinite regression requires infinite time. I say that is illogical. There had to be something which brought everything into existence. I'm also saying that the universe (matter, energy, the forces that govern them, space, time) could not have brought itself into existence. Goes back to "there must have been an uncaused cause (God)." The Creator is above his creation. He's not part of or controlled by it.