Omnipotence itself is a giant paradox.
Because it has not been proven false and logically it can work.
No, it cannot.
God does not need to be omnipotent.
There is no known paradox if you assume God is omnipotent except that he is bound to the laws of logic - for instance, he cannot create a round square because logic does not allow a square to be round.
There is also no paradox if you think God is not omnipotent, but he has the ability of creating and destroying inanimate objects, life, the laws of physics, among a lot of other things.
Also, there is no need to bound the existence of God with the existence of heaven and hell.
I completely agree with this line of reasoning.
The god he mentioned was omnipotent. And if he cannot circumvent logic then he is not omnipotent.
Ya know, by providing support for your arguments, you can not look like an idiot.
Also, an omnipotent God can exist. A round square cannot be made simply because a round square is a circle. That is a feature of language, not reality. In any case, that is irrelevant.
You don’t understand logic?
Can the omnipotent God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?
How is that relevant? The question is if a God can logically exist, the answer to which is undeniably yes.
Also, yes he can, by limiting his own strength temporarily. Don’t respond to that. You are arguing about meaningless things. I’m just being pedantic.
Whether or not the god I’m referring to is Christian or not is irrelevant.
An all-powerful being is not a possible explanation because it’s not an explanation at all, it’s the absence of an explanation.
There is no evidence against fairies, so must I hold that into account too?
Of course there’s a remote possibility for anything, that does not mean I have to consider it possible.
Let me translate this: Anything can happen, but this doesn’t me that I have to accept that anything can happen.
Just define the word omnipotent not as being able to do anything, but as being able to do anything that logic allows.
Congratulations you just quoted something irrelevant. Bravo.
In any case, maybe its time to recap this argument. Effectively what you are saying is that there is no chance of a God. This is obviously false, considering that we do not know how the universe began, and as such, there is a chance that a creator existed there, and has since ceased to act in the world. I am not saying this is likely, I’m saying it is remotely possible.
guga: Then the God of the Bible cannot exist.
But going back to Someonerandm’s posts, first one has to define the word ‘deity’ and then distinguish it from something else altogether. Am I a deity because I’m able to converse in virtual real time with someone on the other side of the planet? I saw inside my body a while ago without having myself cut open. Am I a deity? About 6 months ago, I flew THROUGH THE SKY, over a mile high, at over 500 miles per hour. Am I a deity?
What is a “deity” anyway? And why does the universe HAVE to have a creator? “There’s a chance”? Why? What created the creator? What created that?
Then he can still lift it. And guess what, I don’t give a shit if you don’t want me to respond, you shouldn’t have brought up omnipotence if you didn’t mean an omnipotent god. An omnipotent God is a paradox, there is no exception.
Omnipotence has a very clear definition.
I’ve always considered a God one who can create, destroy, and manipulate the universe and the laws of physics instantly at will, and is all knowing. Everyone has a different idea of what a God is, I suppose. In any case, logically such a thing is possible, if massively improbable. I at no point said the universe had to have a creator. I just said it was possible.
The only way you can win this is if you logically prove that at no point in history such a being existed.
No. The onus is not on me to “prove that no such being existed”. The onus is on YOU to prove that such a being exists/existed.
No. Anything can happen, but some things are so improbable that you can consider them impossible. Things for which there is absolutely no evidence at all are one of those.
But in this scenario, what relevance does any god have in the first place? Saying “god did it” is not an explanation, it’s a circumstance.
If a new antidote is created, your explanation of the antidote isn’t who made it, it’s how it works.
You act like this discussion is in anyway relevant to anything. There are really no implications of any of the points put forward. It is all entirely pedantic. From the start the God of my scenario has just been another circumstance, but one that some were denying as such.
In any case, the question is if it is possible for a God to exist, and it is. Lets move on.
ITT: Tautology. Tautology everywhere.