14 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeHave we really reduced ourselves to this?
no, it was a question with a yes or no answer, not a yes and no answer.
the point was, If you claim a god that is omnipotent as defined,
Then that leads to a logical contradiction.
You ask a question like, "can god create an immovable object, that not even god can move?"
If the answer is yes, then god has created an object he can't move, thus there is something he
can't do, and thus he can't do absolutely anything.
God cannot create an object He can't move.
That doesn't mean anything relevant except to say there is no object that can be possibly created, that God can't move.
God also can't lie.
Does all this mean God is weak and impotent?
Far from it. Of course, we all know that, and we knew it when we had these conversations as children at Sunday School.
The fact that you are asking these silly yes or no questions in order to trap the Christian who answers it, reflects on the depths of absurdity you are willing to go to, in order to score some silly, irrelevant points.
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou are confusing yourself with too much talk without enough factual understanding.
no, it was a question with a yes or no answer, not a yes and no answer.
the point was, If you claim a god that is omnipotent as defined,
Then that leads to a logical contradiction.
You ask a question like, "can god create an immovable object, that not even god can move?"
If the answer is yes, then god has created an object he can't move, thus ...[text shortened]... ogically impossible.
Thus you can put a scope on what god concepts are possible.
I can't get past your first statement. The answer to the question, is god infinitely powerful and able to do absolutely anything he wants? is both yes and no.
Do you know what I mean?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidNo, the point I am making as I clearly stated, is that it is possible to put bounds on what is
Have we really reduced ourselves to this?
God cannot create an object He can't move.
That doesn't mean anything relevant except to say there is no object that can be possibly created, that God can't move.
God also can't lie.
Does all this mean God is weak and impotent?
Far from it. Of course, we all know that, and we knew it when we had these ...[text shortened]... pths of absurdity you are willing to go to, in order to score some silly, irrelevant points.
and is not a possible god concept by following chains of logical reasoning based on only the
laws of logic and the proposed concept of god in question.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by josephwNo, which is what I said last time.
You are confusing yourself with too much talk without enough factual understanding.
I can't get past your first statement. The answer to the question, [b]is god infinitely powerful and able to do absolutely anything he wants? is both yes and no.
Do you know what I mean?[/b]
I don't think you know what you mean either.
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeAre you saying you don't want to know what I mean? I mean, you asked the question. Now, because you don't understand what I mean, you don't want to know why the answer to your question is both yes and no?
No, which is what I said last time.
I don't think you know what you mean either.
I think you're being intellectually dishonest. I think you will object to anything I say as long as you think you know I'm wrong.
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by whodeyYou assume that rejecting God is merely rejecting him in name only.
You assume that rejecting God is merely rejecting him in name only. Interestingly, when David sinned God asked him why he hated him. In other words, the mere fact that he sinned by sleeping with another man's wife and then having him killed, was equal to hating who he was and what he stood for.
Huh? I do not even know what that means. And no I do not assume that. Please try re-reading my post. Are there parts of it that you would like me to clarify?
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by josephwAre you admitting that God is paradoxical?
You are confusing yourself with too much talk without enough factual understanding.
I can't get past your first statement. The answer to the question, [b]is god infinitely powerful and able to do absolutely anything he wants? is both yes and no.
Do you know what I mean?[/b]
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou must stop going on-line and getting third hand incorrect information about the origins of the Veda.
the vedas were not written in armenian.
how do you account for this because only highly intelligent persons can learn Sanskrit and its not for lay persons - especially meat eaters with dull brains.
not that what you claim is true, it's actually absurd, however a language that only intelligent persons can learn is far from 'perfec ...[text shortened]... osition, perhaps 22-2300 years old, nowhere near the "astrological" claim of 5000 years.
You get it wrong every time.
The Veda is actually eternal and cannot be dated - because it pre-dates history itself.
True religion MUST be eternal - because God is eternal.
Think about it ...............if God is eternal then how can a religion appear only a few thousand years ago?
If it appears only a few thousand years ago - then you can be sure it has been fabricated by cheating unqualified religionists.
TRUE RELIGION MUST BE ETERNAL.
All religions which are not eternal are simply fabrications and not bonafide - because they are simply speculations from unauthorized and pseudo religionists.
The Veda is the only religion that can make claim to eternality and perfect teachings.
All other religions are only recent creations from the minds of mundane man - who speculate and fabricate - and this is why they present so much falsity and tell us the universe is only 6500 years old (can you not see this)
Cheating religion can be spotted easily -simply by the fact that it supports animal slaughter.
True religion always protects Gods creatures .........(this is common sense)
Stop getting your false knowledge on-line.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by josephwNo, I am saying I don't know what you mean, and don't think you know what you mean.
Are you saying you don't want to know what I mean? I mean, you asked the question. Now, because you don't understand what I mean, you don't want to know why the answer to your question is both yes and no?
I think you're being intellectually dishonest. I think you will object to anything I say as long as you think you know I'm wrong.
The way you tell that, is because that's what I said.
I didn't say I didn't want to know what you mean, the way you tell that is because I didn't
type I don't want to know what you mean.
It might be simpler if you read what I actually type and assume I mean it rather than
imagine what I type and get offended by something that isn't there.
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by DasaNot only is this a lie, but it is spectacularly stupid, as well.
TRUE RELIGION MUST BE ETERNAL.
Religion cannot exist before Man. Man is the one who believes in this or that, and it IS his belief which defines religion.
This is why your statement that the Vedas existed a million years ago is a lie, and also why ANY religion cannot be older than Man. Period.
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritNo, he belongs in the same category as old earth creationists, who agree
hehe. he thinks a religion invented at most, 3700 years ago is actually millions of years old. he belongs in the same category as young earth creationists.
that the earth may be billions of years old. Young earth creationists
rightly believe that the earth is just a few thousand years old.
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsi can't decide which one of you is more ignorant than the other. perhaps you are twins.
No, he belongs in the same category as old earth creationists, who agree
that the earth may be billions of years old. Young earth creationists
rightly believe that the earth is just a few thousand years old.