Some atheist arguments which I do not care for.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

It is impossible to do what is not real. Therefore God is omnipotent as God can do all that is real. That is not a non sequitur.

Funky_Llama

Omnipotent does not mean 'capable of doing everything that is possible'. What you're basically saying is 'God can do what God can do'.

And what God can do is everything that is real. That is omnipotence.

No. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything. Full stop.

"Everything" is found under the category of "real." If it is not real, then it is not part of "everything."

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

The "isn'ts" wouldn't be "isn'ts" if they were done, which means it is by all accounts and definitions absolutely impossible to do an "isn't."

If two plus two were to equal five, then thast was never an isn't as an isn't is logically impossible and by definition not real or do-able.

Funky_Llama

Hah, I think I can rest my case right there. God can't do 'isn'ts'. Thus he cannot do everything. Now I'm going to go and mow the lawn.

God cannot do what is not real. God can do everything that is real. Everything that is real is everything. Therefore God can do everything. Therefore God is omnipotent.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

It is impossible to do what is not real. Therefore God is omnipotent as God can do all that is real. That is not a non sequitur.

Theokhoth

Omnipotent does not mean 'capable of doing everything that is possible'. What you're basically saying is 'God can do what God can do'.

And what God can do is everything that is real. That is omnipotence.

No. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything. Full stop.

"Everything" is found under the category of "real." If it is not real, then it is not part of "everything."

On the contrary. Real is a subcategory of everything. Fairies are not real. By your logic, they would, therefore, not come under 'everything'. And thus, by your claim that God can only do 'everything', God could not create fairies.

On the contrary. Real is a subcategory of everything. Fairies are not real. By your logic, they would, therefore, not come under 'everything'. And thus, by your claim that God can only do 'everything', God could not create fairies.

Funky_Llama

The existence of fairies is not logically impossible. However, since fairies do not exist, they are not real. They do not count as "everything" unless "everything" includes imagined things, which by definition are not real anyway.

We are talking about the logically impossible, not the possible-but-would-be-so-awesome-if-only-it-was-true.

infinate strength / infinate creation power = 1

if he was like you are saying then the answer would be infinity, he cannot create a rock he can't lift

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

On the contrary. Real is a subcategory of everything. Fairies are not real. By your logic, they would, therefore, not come under 'everything'. And thus, by your claim that God can only do 'everything', God could not create fairies.

Theokhoth

The existence of fairies is not logically impossible. However, since fairies do not exist, they are not real. They do not count as "everything" unless "everything" includes imagined things, which by definition are not real anyway.

We are talking about the logically impossible, not the possible-but-would-be-so-awesome-if-only-it-was-true.

It's irrelevant that they're logically possible. You stated that God can only create things that come under 'everything', and that 'everything" is found under the category of "real." If it is not real, then it is not part of "everything.' I just proved that these statements cannot both be right. Time to rethink. ;)

Why is it that all of the Christians coming to this thread are low level, low post count having people without an avatar or a sig that isn't made for the sole purpose of flaming?Bloodaxe726

What did you say? :| ~ de arimaska

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

On the contrary. Real is a subcategory of everything. Fairies are not real. By your logic, they would, therefore, not come under 'everything'. And thus, by your claim that God can only do 'everything', God could not create fairies.

Funky_Llama

The existence of fairies is not logically impossible. However, since fairies do not exist, they are not real. They do not count as "everything" unless "everything" includes imagined things, which by definition are not real anyway.

We are talking about the logically impossible, not the possible-but-would-be-so-awesome-if-only-it-was-true.

It's irrelevant that they're logically possible. You stated that God can only create things that come under 'everything', and that 'everything" is found under the category of "real." If it is not real, then it is not part of "everything.' I just proved that these statements cannot both be right. Time to rethink. ;)

Fairies are not real. That is a fact. Therefore, they are not part of everything.

I do not claim, however, that fairies cannot become real if God wanted to make them real, because as far as I can tell, fairies do not universally defy all logic by existing.

If fairies became real, they would cease to be unreal.

Once again, you have distorted the position. It isn't just about whether or not it is real, but also whether or not it can become real.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Jandurin

We don't. They could exist on another planet, or even on some uncharted part of our own for all we know.

Technically, at least one unicorn has been proven to exist. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365629,00.html

Fairies are not real. That is a fact. Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Fairies are not real. That is a fact. MetalGear_Ninty

It is for the sake of argument.:x

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Fairies are not real. That is a fact. Theokhoth

It is for the sake of argument.:x

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Fairies are not real. That is a fact. MetalGear_Ninty

It is for the sake of argument.:x

That depends on what you consider to be a part of "everything." If it is in your mind and not an actual thing, then I don't see a reason to call it real.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Fairies are not real. That is a fact. Theokhoth

It is for the sake of argument.:x

That depends on what you consider to be a part of "everything." If it is in your mind and not an actual thing, then I don't see a reason to call it real.

I do not wish to get into a debate about semantics.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

On the contrary. Real is a subcategory of everything. Fairies are not real. By your logic, they would, therefore, not come under 'everything'. And thus, by your claim that God can only do 'everything', God could not create fairies.

Theokhoth

The existence of fairies is not logically impossible. However, since fairies do not exist, they are not real. They do not count as "everything" unless "everything" includes imagined things, which by definition are not real anyway.

We are talking about the logically impossible, not the possible-but-would-be-so-awesome-if-only-it-was-true.

It's irrelevant that they're logically possible. You stated that God can only create things that come under 'everything', and that 'everything" is found under the category of "real." If it is not real, then it is not part of "everything.' I just proved that these statements cannot both be right. Time to rethink. ;)

Fairies are not real. That is a fact. Therefore, they are not part of everything.

I do not claim, however, that fairies cannot become real if God wanted to make them real, because as far as I can tell, fairies do not universally defy all logic by existing.

If fairies became real, they would cease to be unreal.

Once again, you have distorted the position. It isn't just about whether or not it is real, but also whether or not it can become real.

*sigh* This really is my last post. You're wasting my time.

Anyway... if something cannot become real, then God cannot make it real, and therefore if some things cannot become real - which you have admitted - then God is not all-powerful.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Theokhoth

We don't. They could exist on another planet, or even on some uncharted part of our own for all we know.

Technically, at least one unicorn has been proven to exist.

*sigh* This really is my last post. You're wasting my time.

Anyway... if something cannot become real, then God cannot make it real, and therefore if some things cannot become real - which you have admitted - then God is not all-powerful.

Funky_Llama

If something cannot become real, then to make it real is among the things that cannot become real, therefore God is all-powerful as God can do anything that is real.

You never answered this, except with a "well, that's not how omnipotence is defined!" which is what we're arguing: the definition of omnipotence, so that objection is circular reasoning.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]LJS9502_basic

We don't. They could exist on another planet, or even on some uncharted part of our own for all we know.

Technically, at least one unicorn has been proven to exist.

I don't think that's the argument I've been using. . . .

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]LJS9502_basic

We don't. They could exist on another planet, or even on some uncharted part of our own for all we know.

Technically, at least one unicorn has been proven to exist.

Is it written somewhere in the Bible, that God can do everything?MFaraz_Hayat

The Bible actually explicitly says that there are a few things God cannot do.

Those things fall under logically impossible.

you have proof. You've read his word.Jandurin

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] you have proof. You've read his word.LJS9502_basic

I AM ERROR

Er, I mean. . . .that's crazy talk, LJ. Don't be talkin' crazy. >_>

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] you have proof. You've read his word.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Jandurin"] you have proof. You've read his word.Jandurin

Not as a person which is what he appears to want us to think....>__>LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not as a person which is what he appears to want us to think....>__>Jandurin

computer programs don't date.;)LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]computer programs don't date.;)Jandurin

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]Is it written somewhere in the Bible, that God can do everything?Theokhoth

The Bible actually explicitly says that there are a few things God cannot do.

Those things fall under logically impossible.

You are correct. God cannot defeat foes with iron chariots.

From Judges 1:19

Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.

Au contraire amigo....I didn't say they didn't ask me out...I said they don't date.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]Is it written somewhere in the Bible, that God can do everything?reiv

The Bible actually explicitly says that there are a few things God cannot do.

Those things fall under logically impossible.

You are correct. God cannot defeat foes with iron chariots.

From Judges 1:19

Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.

*sigh*

You do know that God wasn't actually there, on the battlefield, right? Replace "the LORD" with "luck" and you'll have the same meaning.

[QUOTE="reiv"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]Is it written somewhere in the Bible, that God can do everything?Theokhoth

The Bible actually explicitly says that there are a few things God cannot do.

Those things fall under logically impossible.

You are correct. God cannot defeat foes with iron chariots.

From Judges 1:19

Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.

*sigh*

You do know that God wasn't actually there, on the battlefield, right? Replace "the LORD" with "luck" and you'll have the same meaning.

Oh I see. We replace words with something that sounds better. Got it.

would a rock with infinite weight still fall under the strict definition of it being a rock?

I don't know where i'm going with this but it might be relevant.

[QUOTE="reiv"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]Is it written somewhere in the Bible, that God can do everything?Theokhoth

The Bible actually explicitly says that there are a few things God cannot do.

Those things fall under logically impossible.

You are correct. God cannot defeat foes with iron chariots.

From Judges 1:19

Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.

*sigh*

You do know that God wasn't actually there, on the battlefield, right? Replace "the LORD" with "luck" and you'll have the same meaning.

Wait, so 'LORD' means 'luck' now? This could make for a fascinating interpretation of the Bible.

would a rock with infinite weight still fall under the strict definition of it being a rock?

I don't know where i'm going with this but it might be relevant.

flazzle

I can assure you it wouldn't.

Oh I see. We replace words with something that sounds better. Got it.

reiv

No, we try to read in context. God wasn't on the battlefield with them.

would a rock with infinite weight still fall under the strict definition of it being a rock?

I don't know where i'm going with this but it might be relevant.

flazzle

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

would a rock with infinite weight still fall under the strict definition of it being a rock?

I don't know where i'm going with this but it might be relevant.

Funky_Llama

I can assure you it wouldn't.

Please explain.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="flazzle"]

would a rock with infinite weight still fall under the strict definition of it being a rock?

I don't know where i'm going with this but it might be relevant.

flazzle

I can assure you it wouldn't.

Please explain.

Well... even if you showed that it wasn't a rock, I'd simply then replace 'rock' with 'object'. Little effect on the actual argument.

[QUOTE="reiv"]

Oh I see. We replace words with something that sounds better. Got it.

Theokhoth

No, we try to read in context. God wasn't on the battlefield with them.

Rather than trying to read it in context, why not just read it as it is written.

[QUOTE="reiv"]

Oh I see. We replace words with something that sounds better. Got it.

Theokhoth

No, we try to read in context. God wasn't on the battlefield with them.

So much for omnipresence. :P

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="reiv"]

Oh I see. We replace words with something that sounds better. Got it.

reiv

No, we try to read in context. God wasn't on the battlefield with them.

Rather than trying to read it in context, why not just read it as it is written.

Because taking things out of context can make it look like it says "God does not exist" when it doesn't.:|

Using "lord" here is the same type of usage as using the word "luck" or "fortune" or what-have-you; the people were doing well in battle and attributed their success to God much like how we attribute some of our fortunes with luck today.

Context.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="reiv"]

Oh I see. We replace words with something that sounds better. Got it.

Funky_Llama

No, we try to read in context. God wasn't on the battlefield with them.

So much for omnipresence. :P

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="reiv"]

Oh I see. We replace words with something that sounds better. Got it.

Funky_Llama

No, we try to read in context. God wasn't on the battlefield with them.

So much for omnipresence. :P

Now, you just go sit in the corner and be quiet.:x

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hawt, that he himself could not eat it?

Sorry, sorry, I had to :lol:

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="reiv"]

Oh I see. We replace words with something that sounds better. Got it.

Theokhoth

No, we try to read in context. God wasn't on the battlefield with them.

So much for omnipresence. :P

Now, you just go sit in the corner and be quiet.:x

...Fine. *sulks*