- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
We are all dying, but all the while we are we are living. If one does not believe in an afterlife then they may see worshiping or practicing a religion as a waste of their short yet precious time on Earth. We are allowed to spend our lives how we want to, and even Christians have to admit that because of Free Will.
"If the rock is made of a ridiculously dense substance, made by God, the rock cannot be greater than God or God would not be omnipotent and would be a thing which is not God. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent eternally. There cannot be anything bigger than God. There cannot be anything more knowledgeable than God (including you). There cannot be anything that is everywhere as God is omnipresent."
Starting off I never claimed that I am more knowledgeable than God, and this is not an attack on your religion. If anything this is a thought experiment. According to the Bible, you are correct, but this statement proves God could not do the impossible unless you use the argument "Humans can't understand it." which I think is a fairly valid argument as we still do not understand a lot.
"Your question is absurd, the thing you are trying to prove is not God indeed is not God. God is the creator of all things. Your statements and questions here are void of reason other than that you do not want God to rule over you."
I have stated that it is simply a thought experiment through which you can determine that an omnipotent being who can do the impossible is impossible at least through our current understanding of logic. This again is not an attack on your beliefs/religion.
This is my last post as I have outlined all of my arguments. Thanks for debating.
It is absurd to say that in order prove He is omnipotent, God must be able to do something proving He is not omnipotent.
This will most likely be my last post as I have said the same thing multiple times and still do not understand what it is you are missing or I am missing. The statement itself doesn't exactly make it so an omnipotent being is impossible, just not in the way that most people would think. If you were omnipotent you would be all powerful, which would mean that, at least in my understanding, you could do anything, even if it is contradictory. In my honest opinion the simplest answer for the side of "Yes" is to say that God is able to do everything, including things that are contradictory and still be omnipotent, but the means of such a feat are not understandable to humankind.
The idea the words represent is God making something that He cannot overcome. It's an impossibility and the goal of this statement, at least in my mind, is to prove that an omnipotent being cannot do absolutely everything anyone has thought of unless they have the ability to alter logic (which they very well may have considering they would be all powerful).
The hypothetical rock could be infinitely dense, so in this case size wouldn't matter. The rock would have to be so heavy that God cannot lift it, or if that is not possible, then God wouldn't be omnipotent. It is simply impossible and by presenting this problem some atheists believe that an omnipotent God who can do everything imaginable is not possible.
I'm sorry but that's simply not the question I'm asking. I think NowASaint puts it quite well; "the explanation of jumping into a mortal body does not work because if God is limited to a mortal body, He is not God....and so you would be left with your absurdity of God creating a rock so big He cannot lift it." although it would not be a rock so big He cannot lift it, but a rock so heavy.
(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
To me the definition of omnipotent; "able to do anything" would mean that the omnipotent being could do anything conceivable, though I suppose the definition is up to interpretation.
The paradox does not go into detail about how the lifting of the rock would work. It is just assumed that if an omnipotent being were to create a rock they cannot lift then they would account for all of the factors in order to make a rock they cannot lift. If they are truly all powerful they could manipulate gravity so that they could make a rock they cannot lift.
We're talking about the abilities of an omnipotent being, so the argument about Earth makes no sense. The lifting of the rock could happen on any plane with the same laws of weight (gravity). The question itself is if an omnipotent being could make a rock that they could not lift. The place is irrelevant to the question and your argument is flawed either way as Jupiter is heavier than Earth meaning that it could take place on a planet larger than Earth. The two rocks could be stacked to use as a place to lift the one of the rocks from.
You can be omnipotent and still go into a simulation. Your physical might never changes, but your simulated might does. You are never not omnipotent in the example.
It's true that you could change your own strength as an omnipotent being, but the question is could an omnipotent being with all of their might available to them create a rock that with all of their might available to them they cannot lift.
I still am apparently not clear enough with my wording. I presented the question unspecifically not going into too much detail. The real question would then be Could God, the omnipotent being He is, create a rock that he, as an omnipotent being and with all of His strength (not downgrading His strength so that He cannot lift the rock) create a rock that could not be lifted with His omnipotent strength? This then leads to the two problems presented with both answers while still considering God (or any omnipotent being) to be omnipotent.
Also along the same line of thought as "If God is possible what logic is there in being Atheist?" is "If there being no God is possible, what point is their in being religious?" or even "If it is possible that all of the Greek Myths are true, why be Christian, Jewish, so on?" It is up to what you believe in and what you think is true. If the reasoning is "Hey if it is possible to have eternal happiness why not get on the road just in case?" then I can say "Why be Christian if it is possible that the aforementioned Greek Myths are real? Why not worship those gods and goddesses instead?" It is all up to personal belief and some believe it is a waste of time to pursue religious endeavors since they don't believe in a God or any gods/goddesses.
Your body is not "Godly" as the side's hyperbolic title claims, but it should be treated with respect. Think about the amazing processes your body undergoes daily for you to live. Such a complex system resulting in life. If that's not good enough it should be treated well so you can better enjoy your time on Earth and also so that you can have more time on Earth if nothing else.
To live you need good health. To have good health you, most likely, will need healthcare. I believe everyone has a right to life, and if you are religious you should see that God would want his children to live as you would believe that he gave the gift of life and that we humans should protect everyone's gift and right to life.
That is quite the argument except I know liberals who support Trump. I am not at the liberty to disclose any personal information, but I do know some people. However I agree with your statement that supporting a party that supports those political views is simply supporting those views.
I don't support their views, they are not my own. I am sorry if I was not clear on what I meant with my original statement. It was simply to display how in the minds of the left it is possible for them to be anti-gun (because of their fear of death) and also pro-abortion. I don't agree with this sentiment and believe it is hypocritical to believe both but many left-wingers do. I was simply presenting a left argument for someone to dispute. I was perhaps not clear enough with the intention of my OP.
It should definitely be an option and readily available to any students who want to take a foreign language. About it being a requirement I'm not so sure. Some students won't use it and won't do well or enjoy it. It should be an option but perhaps not a necessity.
violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.
Violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.
By definition a man could be attacked within the home by his spouse/partner, therefore domestic violence on men is by definition real.
I was simply displaying how it is possible that one can be afraid of death themselves and also be for killing a baby. They believe that unborn babies are not people until they can survive on their own, although in nature mothers care for their young which contradicts their argument. I also never said they believe the baby is not a valid human person just days before it is born. I was not and will not even look at the point of view of such an extreme. Looking at and understanding the other sides' point of view is important, even if you think/know they are wrong. You have to understand them to be able to debate them. I don't agree but from their point of view they are not hypocrites and I was just telling you how that could possibly be so, I was not defending them or their beliefs.
Religion is all about faith. Faith is a choice. There is no proof for any one religion and even though all religious think their religion is right there is no proof only faith. Since faith is a choice I think we should be able to choose what we believe and what we think is true when presented with all of the facts.
In today's society offensive is such a broad term in the sense that you could say you like chocolate ice cream over vanilla, I say that's offensive and racist and in some cases I can have your post taken down for something so ridiculous. Unless it is truly hurting someone, I think we should have free speech.
To be fair if the art is sanctioned by the College then it is not bad. Personally I wouldn't care even if it was showing the decapitation of someone I like. It is freedom of speech but could be considered graphic and not appropriate for school grounds. That is up for the school to decide to my knowledge. I think as long as foil7 is supporting both sides of the coin, no matter whose severed head it is, it is an argument that is respectable.
I don't think any president would like being president. It is one of the closest things you can get to the weight of the world on your shoulders. I think they do it because they want to make the world a better place. Unless they are corrupt (which I am not suggesting Trump is) and are only in it for the power, although the president is not a dictator.
Agreed that there are simply too many earthquakes to name them all.
"It is estimated that there are 500,000 detectable earthquakes in the world each year. 100,000 of those can be felt, and 100 of them cause damage." (Source Below)
With the way things are going right now, I don't think that self-driving cars should be a thing for quite a while. I just don't see a system where real drivers and self-driving computers integrate well. If anything, it may cause more accidents for the sheer fact that the computer can't and will not be as capable to handle some situations.
It really depends, but I'm going with no simply because the media is a business and businesses are supposed to make as much money as possible. By over exaggerating stories, they get clicks and ratings, which makes them money. To be honest I expect them to over exaggerate because it's their jobs. As much as we may not want to believe it, their jobs are to make money not to report the news.