CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It's an impossibility, from a strict biblical standpoint, for God to lie. If something is truly impossible it has no place in existence.
Why can't she change?
He is outside of time. God never ages or decays. He remains the same.
He can't create a rock he cannot lift. If he does it, then he wouldn't be able to lift the rock.
So you asking an infinite God to make an infinite rock? How will the rock ever surpass infinity? Even then if he was to lift this rock would he have too been in the known universe and if so if the rock had infinite mass would it take up all the space in the universe? Could God just move the universe and still move the rock in some way to make it proportional to lift? Just a few questions.
God can create a rock that he cannot lift because god has no physical body with which to lift it. He could get the rock lifted by manipulating a physical object such as a 'jesus' equivalent that he creates to represent him though.
Haha, but that still doesn't prove he is omnipotent. Because, if it remains a truth, in that reality he isn't omnipotent... If it remains a lie, didn't God never lie?
It's a lie to others, but a truth to others. From God's perspective, he has not lied, but from others it is a lie from God. It is simultaneously a lie from god and a truth from God.
He is above all realities, and so doesn't really exist in one reality. By not existing in the singular reality that the lie remains a truth, he remains omnipotent.
If you can use the argument that God isn't all powerful because he can't make a rock he can't lift then I can use the argument that even though God isn't omnipotent he is omnipotent.
That is absurd. The point is that the notion of 'omnipotence' is logically flawed as it entails logical impossibilities. So if god is inextricably attached to omnipotence then he is, logically, inextricably attached to illogical impossibilities- which would then make him logically impossible.
Your statement, however, was just a nonsensical rhetorical device.
I am just very curious as to your fixation of my photo... I also question your sexuality- are you homosexual (as per your 'HOT' remark)?
Or, are you flummoxed by my attractiveness and thus skeptical about my photo?
I am curious because you felt the need to create an account just to ask a relatively simple question. The fact that you went through this exhaustive process--relative to the alternatives--raises a few red flags regarding (1) your sexuality, or (2) your infatuation of the person in the photo; or both- the latter being the consequent of the former.
Dude. You took that photo from an onion article. Either that, or you were a model in 2008 and have been using the same photo that was used in an onion article ever since.
It also seems likely to me that you created a dummy account to praise you and then used that information to mock someone else. It would match up with everything we know about you right now.
Do you really get so much satisfaction by pretending to be better than people you are likely to never meet in your life?
I've been here for a long time, I just didn't make an account until 11 days ago because I was afraid to debate . And yes I have. He is a very smart person with a complex sense of humor.
Because quite a few of us have been here talking to him long enough to know. If you'd like you can simply go through his comment and debate history. He has admitted to what pirate is saying multiple times, without any shame.
Claiming that he is superior means that he is claiming to be better in every aspect. Specifically stating that he is intellectually superior is only claiming to be better in one aspect.
One does not need to claim they are better in every aspect in order to be superior. Not sure where you got that from but it certainly doesn't come from the definition of the word, or its general use.
That is supposition on your part. Again, claiming to be superior does not require one to claim that they are superior in all things. That is not in any way inherent in the word or its application.
Not at all. If one believes certain traits are more important (intelligence tends to fall under that category) and they believe they are superior in that field, they are declaring superiority.
I never claimed you did. I never even claimed that Harvard did. I simply said that he has proscribed heightened importance to that particular trait and claimed superiority in such. Out of curiosity, exactly how much did you bother to look through his comment and debate history?
As I thought, you didn't bother to spend much time looking through his debate and comment history.
Let me give you some examples: "Notwithstanding, I understand the frustration you must feel from consistently making yourself look foolish from engaging in debates with so much conviction and surety, only to poignantly learn that you cannot win- as your ignorance exceeds the intellectual precedence (me), of which you have not yet (rigorously) experienced and are not yet suited to assail."
"You overtly express you inability to intellectually argue with me in almost all of your disputes. The fact that you cannot ascertain the crux of my arguments explains why your responses are so ludicrous ("2+3=4"...? You needed to understand that supposition in order to properly respond to my statement dealing with how a woman can not be a fit mother, but still be a necessary life force for her child (as per the terms 'fed via breasts'.))"
"You obviously didn't understand my point either... Is this really what you users have succumbed to? You are constantly in admittance of your inferiority by only responding to my posts with ad hominin attacks, rather than dealing with the substance of my arguments. You only see my writings as being pompous simply because you feel insecure when reading. "
"Moreover, your assumption about the knowledge of which you claim to have derives from someone else purporting that I create separate accounts etc. You appeal to the masses as most sheep do instead of looking at dis-confirming evidence (though, this is understandable as any form of research may be intellectually strenuous for someone of your caliber)."
I picked just a few off the top, but I can provide plenty more if you'd like from both of his accounts.
Please indicate where in any of those quotes, does he claim to assign importance over all other aspects, to intellect. And back up your assertions with logic and not simply your belief of what his post imply.
That's funny... Atrag openly admitted to creating the dummy account (go back and reread). Do you really get so much satisfaction by making false claims about someone who is your better?
It also seems likely to me that you created a dummy account to praise you and then used that information to mock someone else. It would match up with everything we know about you right now.
It would only seem that way to a blithering idiot who cannot read... wait a minute.......
There has not been no valid confirmation of y the claims against me, and thus you still know absolutely nothing about me. You presume all of these false claims as being true with your only evidence being a 'gut' feeling; or, "I saw someone who doesn't like you make defamatory claims about you and I decided to accept them as being factual."
You are also terrible at reconnaissance as you would not make such assumptions if you actually knew how to effectively link someone to an account.
Moreover, your assumption about the knowledge of which you claim to have derives from someone else purporting that I create separate accounts etc. You appeal to the masses as most sheep do instead of looking at dis-confirming evidence (though, this is understandable as any form of research may be intellectually strenuous for someone of your caliber).
Honestly... do you see how moronic you sound? These types of assumptions coincide with every claim I make against a lot of CD users' intellect.
Either you are incapable of understanding elementary context, or you apparently like to make unwarranted presumptions without even slightly perusing the exchange.
Though, whenever I make this claim it gets disregarded, notwithstanding your post is exemplary as to why you are viewed as being intellectually inferior.
If we remove the logic we can say anything we want. An omnipotent being making an rock he cannot lift is illogical in same way 2 + 2 = 5 is. So if we step outside logic we can quite easily say that he can make a rock that is both can and cannot lift. Or that he is omnipotent without being omnipotent.
You are not discerning the distinction between the illogicality attached to an omnipotent being, and the theoretical illogicality of a supposition. Since god can modify logic, he can make 1+2=5, we cannot (at least in this universe). But since he can make a rock that he cannot lift, then he is rendered potent(?) unless we remove the terms by which (god) is described.
God cannot stop being God. This question implies that in order to be Omnipotent, God must be able to destroy Himself and if He doesn't do it, He can't be omnipotent.
So the answer would be no, God cannot make a rock so big He cannot move it because in order to do that, He would have to stop being God. You can't make God stop being God by asking stupid questions.
Our church follows this line of thought. I have met others who believe in full omnipotence. That God can do everything including the logically impossible.
Technically if he were able to do anything and everything, that would include the logically impossible. This makes god himself logically impossible (though he can still exist, just not logically- like the biblical stories (e.g. staff to snake), those things could have happened, though not logically/scientifically).
Of course the counter to this argument is that god does not apply to the principles of logic, but that counter ensues absurdity & farcicality and thus is non-considerable (sort of like suggesting that Superman perhaps could be real- such a suggestion is not worthy of consideration).
Furthermore, the statement "full omnipotence" and the context by which you used it is fallacious. The only way you can logically minimize/reduce the extent of omnipotence is by compartmentalizing it (e.g. numerical omnipotence, geographical omnipotence, linguistic omnipotence, etc.)- though, god is construed to be universally omnipotent.
Technically if he were able to do anything and everything, that would include the logically impossible.
The problem with that is that the logically impossible is not a thing. If it isn't a thing it can't be grouped in "everything".
Of course the counter to this argument is that god does not apply to the principles of logic, but that counter ensues absurdity & farcicality and thus is non-considerable (sort of like suggesting that Superman perhaps could be real- such a suggestion is not worthy of consideration).
For our faith we do believe God is above logic and doesn't necessarily have to obey them, but that us making assumptions about his character and power.
Furthermore, the statement "full omnipotence" and the context by which you used it is fallacious.
Fallacious? I don't think so. There are different types of omnipotence.
The problem with that is that the logically impossible is not a thing. If it isn't a thing it can't be grouped in "everything".
The logically impossible is a thing if you are the administrator of that which we call logic. Also, 'emptiness' is the absence of something but the substance of emptiness is still deemed a 'thing'.
For our faith we do believe God is above logic and doesn't necessarily have to obey them, but that us making assumptions about his character and power.
If god were real I am sure it would want your assumptions to correspond with the rules of logic.
Again, the greatest mistake made when defining god was attaching the term 'omnipotent' to him and universalizing it (since god created everything).
Fallacious? I don't think so. There are different types of omnipotence
God supposedly has universal omnipotence. If I am wrong please do let me know where in the bible (or some other text that is apart of your religion) it specifies his omnipotence.
To say that he lacks full omnipotence is to say he is only partly omnipotent. You can logically only be partly omnipotent if you, again, compartmentalize or contextualize omnipotence.
For example, if I say, "I can do every mathematical computation, except subtraction," I, therefore, am not mathematically omnipotent- and one cannot dub this partial omnipotence as it would negate the meaning of omnipotence entirely- and you would be advancing a quantification fallacy.
The logically impossible is a thing if you are the administrator of that which we call logic.
God doesn't change so any logical rules set now have been set for all of time. Anything that's logically impossible can't be a thing. In order to be a thing you need to have some sort of existence. The logically impossible cannot exist. If I am wrong do correct me. I am enjoying this conversation.
Also, 'emptiness' is the absence of something but the substance of emptiness is still deemed a 'thing'.
The substance of emptiness? I would call it nothing. If there is not a single thing there I'm not quantifying the lack of something.
If god were real I am sure it would want your assumptions to correspond with the rules of logic.
Of course. I agree.
Again, the greatest mistake made when defining god was attaching the term 'omnipotent' to him and universalizing it (since god created everything).
I also agree with this.
God supposedly has universal omnipotence. If I am wrong please do let me know where in the bible (or some other text that is apart of your religion) it specifies his omnipotence.
This mostly just comes from thinking over what we know about God so far. The standard English understanding of omnipotence is that a being can do anything and everything. However, the word omnipotens (latin) just means all power. Essentially meaning that God is a powerful being. Much more powerful than any of us. The word almighty is practically the same as saying all power.
Another form of omnipotence would be for a being to be able to do everything as long as it aligns with the beings nature. So God can be "omnipotent", but cannot lie as that is against his nature. It's logically a consequence that God can only speak the truth, therefore cannot lie.
Another form of omnipotence is the one where the being is actually controlling everything and every action is truly the deities action.
(1) Anything that's logically impossible can't be a thing,
(2) In order to be a thing you need to have some sort of existence,
(3) [therefore,] the logically impossible cannot exist.
I contend with premise (1). The logically impossible can exist if and omnipotent being creates it. Since the logically impossible can exist in theory then it can be reified by an all powerful being.
This may seem incomprehensible because we do not have the mind of god but to someone who is infinitely powerful such a concept, I would imagine, is relatively easy to reify.
Also, what is your view on the Arch, burning bush, staff to snake, etc.? This is important because if you believe any of these things then you believe that god can do the logically impossible.
"The standard English understanding of omnipotence is that a being can do anything and everything. However, the word 'omnipotens' (latin) just means all power. Essentially meaning that God is a powerful being. Much more powerful than any of us. The word almighty is practically the same as saying all power."
You do see the specificity of the Latin term [omnipotens] "all" powerful? I put emphasis on the 'all' because when you say 'all powerful' you are essentially reiterating the non-Latin meaning of the term- 'to be able to do anything'. Basically, both definitions are fungible.
Another form of omnipotence would be for a being to be able to do everything as long as it aligns with the beings nature.
But of god created nature itself then surely you agree that he can modify it (which would include the logical form of nature)?
If god created nature while knowing the list of events that would follow the he, in a sense, is controlling (or controlled) the outcome of everything.
For example, if I create a robot with the knowledge that it will live 5 years, marry 2 people, etc., I controlled the robots outcome (in some paradoxical way). This holds with god as his is also omniscient (which means he knew every outcome that has taken place, which is also why (god) is oftentimes thought of to be malevolent (since he knew 2 year old babies would be raped to death, he knew the Holocaust would happen, etc. following the creation of life)).
I contend with premise (1). The logically impossible can exist if and omnipotent being creates it. Since the logically impossible can exist in theory then it can be reified by an all powerful being.
I see. I guess our differences lie with our definitions of "omnipotent". What do you think?
Also, what is your view on the Arch, burning bush, staff to snake, etc.? This is important because if you believe any of these things then you believe that god can do the logically impossible.
Those acts of god seem rather possible if you have the power to enact them. However, a square circle is just impossible. The definitions for a square and a circle cannot be combined. Same thing goes for a married bachelor.
You do see the specificity of the Latin term [omnipotens] "all" powerful? I put emphasis on the 'all' because when you say 'all powerful' you are essentially reiterating the non-Latin meaning of the term- 'to be able to do anything'. Basically, both definitions are fungible.
I am only using the most accurate meaning for omnipotent in my opinion. Time wise at least. Many people like the "able to do everything" because that's all they have been taught. The way almighty was used back then would lead me to a different conclusion.
But of god created nature itself then surely you agree that he can modify it (which would include the logical form of nature)?
If I give you a huge blank canvas and any art tool at your disposal could you make a square circle? There could possibly be things God cannot create or change. His own nature may not allow him to create such things or do certain things.
If god created nature while knowing the list of events that would follow the he, in a sense, is controlling (or controlled) the outcome of everything.
Are you saying his creation didn't make any decisions at all?
This holds with god as his is also omniscient (which means he knew every outcome that has taken place, which is also why (god) is oftentimes thought of to be malevolent (since he knew 2 year old babies would be raped to death, he knew the Holocaust would happen, etc. following the creation of life)).
Malevolent in human eyes, maybe. God didn't rape any babies or cause the Holocaust. Those are the actions of humans.
I see. I guess our differences lie with our definitions of "omnipotent". What do you think?
Not necessarily the definition, you seem to suggest that gods power is limited to a degree. My problem with this suggestion is that in no text, that I have read, has placed a limit on gods power.
Those acts of god seem rather possible if you have the power to enact them. However, a square circle is just impossible. The definitions for a square and a circle cannot be combined. Same thing goes for a married bachelor.
Insofar as logic goes. If we could reconstruct the rules of the universe a square circle might just be possible, though no one can know what it would look like (except an omniscient being (i.e. god)).
His own nature may not allow him to create such things or do certain things.
But for him to be the wielder of anything and everything it would just be odd to limit his power. Though, this largely reduces to our attribution with the term 'omnipotent'.
Malevolent in human eyes, maybe. God didn't rape any babies or cause the Holocaust. Those are the actions of humans.
Malevolent by definition. He knew that babies were going to be raped and the Holocaust was going to happen before he created man. This makes him entirely responsible. For instance:
Say I create a robot knowing that when I activate it, it will kill 5 people. Note, I did not create it for the purpose to kill 5 people- rather, I created it knowing that it would. And [the robot] did, indeed, kill 5 people. Question: am I responsible?
So you're trying to use logic to disprove an illogical trait? Let me know how that works out.
If you acknowledge God as one who can do anything (including the illogical), it doesn't make any sense to pit logical constraints on Him. On the flip side, if you're going to argue that God can do anything within the constraints of logic, then your argument still doesn't hold, as it wouldn't be possible for there to be a rock that God can't lift (being all-powerful).
It is here that Epicurus deals with what you are saying; with the possibility that God might indeed be able to stop evil, but does not find it is necessary to do so for whatever reason. His response is to refer to such a god as malevolent. So Epicurus isn't confusing the word God with protector, he is simply making a judgement call regarding what a god would be even if he didn't wish to protect us.
