Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Omnipotence and Omniscient Paradox
50 Answers
If God is all powerful and all knowing, is her therfore able to create something that is too heavy for him to lift?
Because this paradox theoretically allows him to only be able to do one and not the other, does that mean that God cannot exist?
Because this paradox theoretically allows him to only be able to do one and not the other, does that mean that God cannot exist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by volcom. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Octavius: "Waldo, yes He designed humans, He designed them with the free will to do good or bad, or be an atheist, which is why presumably you recognise Him and blame Him for this fault?"
Ha! As you know, I don't believe in him or any other gods, so no, I don't blame him for anything. However, it's surely reasonable to consider the implications if those who insist God exists are right, and if he does exist as is contended by believers, the whole thing rapidly disintergrates under the weight of it's own illogic.
123Everton: "The worst tyrants of our age were atheists Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot even saddam Hussein was a secularist."
a) Hitler certainly wasn't an atheist neither in public nor in private but regardless
b) blaming atheism (the lack of belief in god) for the autrocities of Mao, Stalin etc is clearly ridiculous. Would you blame their lack of belief in fairies as an equally credible reason? No, obviously you wouldn't, particularly given that none of them cited atheism or afairyism as motivating factors. Would you perhaps give any weight to the notion that it might perchance have a wee, bijou, tadette more to do with the fact that they were leaders of dogmatic totalitarian states..?
Contrast this with the Inquisition. The atrocities perpetrated were because of a doctrine held by the church, and the thoughts/actions of those deemed to be heretical. Christianity can be blamed in this instance, while in the examples above atheism cannot.
Ha! As you know, I don't believe in him or any other gods, so no, I don't blame him for anything. However, it's surely reasonable to consider the implications if those who insist God exists are right, and if he does exist as is contended by believers, the whole thing rapidly disintergrates under the weight of it's own illogic.
123Everton: "The worst tyrants of our age were atheists Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot even saddam Hussein was a secularist."
a) Hitler certainly wasn't an atheist neither in public nor in private but regardless
b) blaming atheism (the lack of belief in god) for the autrocities of Mao, Stalin etc is clearly ridiculous. Would you blame their lack of belief in fairies as an equally credible reason? No, obviously you wouldn't, particularly given that none of them cited atheism or afairyism as motivating factors. Would you perhaps give any weight to the notion that it might perchance have a wee, bijou, tadette more to do with the fact that they were leaders of dogmatic totalitarian states..?
Contrast this with the Inquisition. The atrocities perpetrated were because of a doctrine held by the church, and the thoughts/actions of those deemed to be heretical. Christianity can be blamed in this instance, while in the examples above atheism cannot.
Sherman it's the last line I find how to fathom, what difference does it make to you what other people believe, why so passinate? It's prcisely this insulting tone that we all need to avoid whether it is in inter faith dialogue or between non-believers and each other or non-believers and creationists.
No-one holds a monopoly on rightness, no-one knows catergorically what caused the genesis of creation.
One can only believe.
Are you man enough to accept the validity of someone elses reasoning (belief).
If not then I truly pity you.
No-one holds a monopoly on rightness, no-one knows catergorically what caused the genesis of creation.
One can only believe.
Are you man enough to accept the validity of someone elses reasoning (belief).
If not then I truly pity you.
Waldo a good point well argued.
But communism (per se) did have at it's core state sponsored atheism (it closed the churches), and as for Hitler he may well have been raised a catholic but (and I've read Kershaws' biography on Hitler) he abandoned it. Any references Hiltler made to creationism once in power were largely paganistic (he used pagan symbols, he revelled in pagan festivals, and he reffered to goddesses of history and so on) I don't for one minute believe that paganism was the cause of the holocaust.
In all the instances you mention above the one thing that abides is the presence of man exercising free will.
One will never commit sin so cheerfully when one does it out of religious (or political) conviction, all sin is founded in reason.
But communism (per se) did have at it's core state sponsored atheism (it closed the churches), and as for Hitler he may well have been raised a catholic but (and I've read Kershaws' biography on Hitler) he abandoned it. Any references Hiltler made to creationism once in power were largely paganistic (he used pagan symbols, he revelled in pagan festivals, and he reffered to goddesses of history and so on) I don't for one minute believe that paganism was the cause of the holocaust.
In all the instances you mention above the one thing that abides is the presence of man exercising free will.
One will never commit sin so cheerfully when one does it out of religious (or political) conviction, all sin is founded in reason.
Waldo, you don�t believe he exists but you are happy to debate in his power and presence. Isn�t that just, well�.. illogical in itself? It doesn�t disintegrate under the weight of its own logic, unless you are debating something that you don�t really believe. In which case, ipso facto, the disintegration of the logic in your view is confirmation that you don�t believe in him and therefore cannot believe in any of the responses.
The Spurs Fan: Eh? In what way is it illogical to take a position espoused by someone else and thinking about the consequences there of?
That's what the art of argument is all about, surely..?
It disintegrates because the characteristics ascribed to God lead to obvious paradox, not because of anything I've introduced into the story.
That's what the art of argument is all about, surely..?
It disintegrates because the characteristics ascribed to God lead to obvious paradox, not because of anything I've introduced into the story.
Everton: "Waldo a good point well argued."
Thank you.
"But communism (per se) did have at it's core state sponsored atheism (it closed the churches)"
There is no doctrine of atheism; how can there be? It mandates no behaviour and no thought except the lack of belief in God.
"as for Hitler he may well have been raised a catholic but (and I've read Kershaws' biography on Hitler) he abandoned it. Any references Hiltler made to creationism once in power were largely paganistic"
i.e not an atheist, which was your point.
"In all the instances you mention above the one thing that abides is the presence of man exercising free will."
I'm unsure what you mean to prove by saying that. It only makes sense if you're religious.
"One will never commit sin so cheerfully when one does it out of religious (or political) conviction, all sin is founded in reason."
Except original sin. Or, to take another example, lusting after someone; unless you're going to tell me lust is a conscious, rational decision..?
Thank you.
"But communism (per se) did have at it's core state sponsored atheism (it closed the churches)"
There is no doctrine of atheism; how can there be? It mandates no behaviour and no thought except the lack of belief in God.
"as for Hitler he may well have been raised a catholic but (and I've read Kershaws' biography on Hitler) he abandoned it. Any references Hiltler made to creationism once in power were largely paganistic"
i.e not an atheist, which was your point.
"In all the instances you mention above the one thing that abides is the presence of man exercising free will."
I'm unsure what you mean to prove by saying that. It only makes sense if you're religious.
"One will never commit sin so cheerfully when one does it out of religious (or political) conviction, all sin is founded in reason."
Except original sin. Or, to take another example, lusting after someone; unless you're going to tell me lust is a conscious, rational decision..?
Octavius, oh, I see, that little story of Adam and Eve doesn't fit, so interpret it to make it fit. Not this time, because although the bible is often ambiguous, this account is quite clear.
Gen 3:7 ... and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day; and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
I can't see anything to argue about with that. Quite clearly, Adam and Eve hid amongst the trees and God didn't know where they were.
(Incidentally, I also have to wonder what this great spirit was doing going for a stroll in the garden).
Gen 3:7 ... and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day; and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
I can't see anything to argue about with that. Quite clearly, Adam and Eve hid amongst the trees and God didn't know where they were.
(Incidentally, I also have to wonder what this great spirit was doing going for a stroll in the garden).
Naomi, have you ever considered asking Him?
I presume it must have been a nice day for a stroll.
Have you never seen a child cover its eyes and thinks it is hidden to the outside world? God knew where they were, it is themselves who thought they were hidden, he needed them to reveal themselves (in a non wotsits way).
I presume it must have been a nice day for a stroll.
Have you never seen a child cover its eyes and thinks it is hidden to the outside world? God knew where they were, it is themselves who thought they were hidden, he needed them to reveal themselves (in a non wotsits way).
My understanding of communism is that it construed it as being wrong to bow to anyone but the state, it was not allowed for anyone to express their faith. That is state sponsored atheism.
Hitler abandoned catholiscism, most people who describe themselves as atheists were born into a faith and then later turned their back on it.
To succumb to lust is a concious decision as to whether it's a rational one is for the plaintiff to decide.
When you look at it Darwen was a christian, he never wavered in his belief in God, but Sherman the most avid supporter of his theory views him as pathetic (that's a paradox) if only the scientists that atheists revere so greatly could agree on anything.
I'd have a huge amount of respect for any atheist who on December 25th does'nt buy their kids or their partner any presents and settles down to burger and chips for their meal. But they don't, I admire anyone who believes in the things that make them happy and don't hurt others. I just wish these self confessed and highly vocal atheists would have the courage of their convictions and not celebrate Christmas.
To all the atheist respondents, in all honesty are you not going to celebrate Christmas?
Hitler abandoned catholiscism, most people who describe themselves as atheists were born into a faith and then later turned their back on it.
To succumb to lust is a concious decision as to whether it's a rational one is for the plaintiff to decide.
When you look at it Darwen was a christian, he never wavered in his belief in God, but Sherman the most avid supporter of his theory views him as pathetic (that's a paradox) if only the scientists that atheists revere so greatly could agree on anything.
I'd have a huge amount of respect for any atheist who on December 25th does'nt buy their kids or their partner any presents and settles down to burger and chips for their meal. But they don't, I admire anyone who believes in the things that make them happy and don't hurt others. I just wish these self confessed and highly vocal atheists would have the courage of their convictions and not celebrate Christmas.
To all the atheist respondents, in all honesty are you not going to celebrate Christmas?
Waldo has five 'windows on the world ' like the rest of us, but does not consider, that is the limitation of his experience. The five windows we are given by God, who could have given us more, but didn't. But, Waldo, with his five windows, and his God given logic and reason, (mere tools, after all), uses these gifts to deny the very existence of his Creator.
How arrogant!
When Waldo can explain the Big Bang then I'll listen, until then, his is a convoluted argument based on his own meagre view of the universe, that he believes is all encompassing, or rather will be, once his god of science has farted out the meaning of life!
How arrogant!
When Waldo can explain the Big Bang then I'll listen, until then, his is a convoluted argument based on his own meagre view of the universe, that he believes is all encompassing, or rather will be, once his god of science has farted out the meaning of life!
Naomi I have to differ with you, I feel that anyone who can consider, accept and respect the differing viewpoints of the creation of life the universe and everything has a broader view of the universe.
No-one possesses a monopoly on rightness or self righteousness on this issue.
The challenge for everyone (not me) is to accept and respect each others perspective.
No-one possesses a monopoly on rightness or self righteousness on this issue.
The challenge for everyone (not me) is to accept and respect each others perspective.
Theland said - 'But, Waldo, with his five windows, and his God given logic and reason, (mere tools, after all), uses these gifts to deny the very existence of his Creator.
How arrogant!'
Your arrogance accusation kinda presupposes that there is actually a god doesn't it? It's no more arrogant than using our Flying Spaghetti Monster given senses to deny the existance of his Noodley Appendage.
And Theland said - 'When Waldo can explain the Big Bang then I'll listen, until then, his is a convoluted argument based on his own meagre view of the universe...'
Likewise, I'll believe your convoluted god idea when you can explain where he came from. Hypocrisy thy name is Theland.
How arrogant!'
Your arrogance accusation kinda presupposes that there is actually a god doesn't it? It's no more arrogant than using our Flying Spaghetti Monster given senses to deny the existance of his Noodley Appendage.
And Theland said - 'When Waldo can explain the Big Bang then I'll listen, until then, his is a convoluted argument based on his own meagre view of the universe...'
Likewise, I'll believe your convoluted god idea when you can explain where he came from. Hypocrisy thy name is Theland.
If you believe in God he exists, if you don't then he does'nt.
The answer to your question Llamatron is easy, God is, was and always has been.
You can accept that answer or deny it (freewill) In as much the same way as the big bang, how can nothing explode and then expand expeditionally to unimaginable volumes?
I just wish that those who disagree could do so without resorting to childish name calling.
If atheism makes you happy and allows you to understand the world and your way through it, then I'm happy for you. It's no skin off my nose.
But given your vociferous (and mildly amusing) denial of intelligent design, I have to ask you are you going to celebrate at all this Christmas?
The answer to your question Llamatron is easy, God is, was and always has been.
You can accept that answer or deny it (freewill) In as much the same way as the big bang, how can nothing explode and then expand expeditionally to unimaginable volumes?
I just wish that those who disagree could do so without resorting to childish name calling.
If atheism makes you happy and allows you to understand the world and your way through it, then I'm happy for you. It's no skin off my nose.
But given your vociferous (and mildly amusing) denial of intelligent design, I have to ask you are you going to celebrate at all this Christmas?
Latest Posts
Business & Finance5 mins ago
I Hated New Labour....now I Miss Them!
Politics10 mins ago
Home & Garden10 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.