ChatterBank2 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.
It seems to me that if there is a God man would be able to understand it/him/her in any known language so questioning omnipotence and omniscient seems a little on the futile side.
As to Adam and Eve, well to crib a line or two from Calvin and Hobbs, if God made man in his own image then God has a goofy sense of humour. Or is in serious trouble regarding their anatomy. But then if we can't understand an idea of God via language then I don't suppose questioning their anatomy is going to help much either.
As to Adam and Eve, well to crib a line or two from Calvin and Hobbs, if God made man in his own image then God has a goofy sense of humour. Or is in serious trouble regarding their anatomy. But then if we can't understand an idea of God via language then I don't suppose questioning their anatomy is going to help much either.
Theland, thank you for your commments.
You are, of course, entirely wrong to suggest that anyone is limited merely to the five senses they're born with. We can experience so very much more; Gamma-rays to X-rays, for one example, and we can observe what occurs in those spectrums and make predictions based on those observations and test them.
I'm sorry that you feel my world view is 'meagre'. I can't agree. In my experience, I find life, Earth and the universe a source of constant wonder and great beauty. It must be horrible to be so jaded that one describes such an astonishing assortment of riches as 'meagre' and that it is only with the assistance of an imaginary friend that you can enjoy them.
The trouble is, when its someone like you making these charges - and I mean this as an observation, not an insult - someone who has frequently demonstrated a lack of understanding of even fairly basic of scientific principles or concepts - such as repeated attempts to insist the word 'theory' means something entirely different from the very easily verified actuality or implying that ID has any credibility or whathaveyou, it's difficult to take such comments particularly seriously.
As for the suggestion that it is my poverty of vision to fail to appreciate the signature of some sky fairy in the universe, if there weren't so many simpler, more elegant explanations for the universe that didn't require his existence, perhaps I too might be more inclined to believe in your god. Bertrand Russell is said to have remarked that if he found himself at the pearly gates being asked to account for his lack of belief, he'd say, 'Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.' I can only agree.
You are, of course, entirely wrong to suggest that anyone is limited merely to the five senses they're born with. We can experience so very much more; Gamma-rays to X-rays, for one example, and we can observe what occurs in those spectrums and make predictions based on those observations and test them.
I'm sorry that you feel my world view is 'meagre'. I can't agree. In my experience, I find life, Earth and the universe a source of constant wonder and great beauty. It must be horrible to be so jaded that one describes such an astonishing assortment of riches as 'meagre' and that it is only with the assistance of an imaginary friend that you can enjoy them.
The trouble is, when its someone like you making these charges - and I mean this as an observation, not an insult - someone who has frequently demonstrated a lack of understanding of even fairly basic of scientific principles or concepts - such as repeated attempts to insist the word 'theory' means something entirely different from the very easily verified actuality or implying that ID has any credibility or whathaveyou, it's difficult to take such comments particularly seriously.
As for the suggestion that it is my poverty of vision to fail to appreciate the signature of some sky fairy in the universe, if there weren't so many simpler, more elegant explanations for the universe that didn't require his existence, perhaps I too might be more inclined to believe in your god. Bertrand Russell is said to have remarked that if he found himself at the pearly gates being asked to account for his lack of belief, he'd say, 'Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.' I can only agree.
123everton, I do not celebrate the alleged birth of Christ who by all accounts was not born on December 25th anyway. Nor do I consider giving and receiving gifts between myself and friends on that day a compromise of my ethics. There was a time when I questioned my right to breath the air allegedly provided by a God for whom I could not justify my respect but I chose to burn in hell if this is the fate I had earned rather than condemn myself to the self-loathing act of seeking a forgiveness for the alleged sin of existing.
I do not judge myself or my friends by the impossible standards imposed by an alleged creator. Nor do I judge others based solely on their beliefs. It is the consequence of the actions that follow from what we choose to believe that I use to determine who my friends are and to whom I should give my earned respect.
I will not be intimidated or humiliated by liars and thieves at their suggestion that my days on this Earth belong to anyone other than the one who acknowledges responsibility for my life and actions, that one being me. I likewise acknowledge your right to celebrate or not the 25th day of December or any other day as you see fit for as long as you respect the right of my friends and myself to live our lives making no demands on others other than that if they do not wish to participate in a mutually agreed and mutually beneficial relationship they leave us the hell alone.
Volcom, My apologies for straying off topic. I hope you can appreciate why I deemed it necessary to do so.
As to your question, existence itself contradicts God. Since God is attributed with creating everything that exists, God is therefore not a part of but is outside of existence and therefore does not exist as anything other than a figment in the imagination of those who do not hold that only reason can enable one to determine whether or not something exists and are therefore and thereby unreasonable. In as much as those alleging the existence of God insist on the existence of God, (as demonstrated by the question answered above) they will prove themselves to be equally irrational.
I think you will find that there are as many version of who/what God is as there are questions regarding the alleged existence thereof. In this never ending spiral of unintelligibility it is the responsibility of those alleging the existence of something to define the nature of and provide the proof of their claims which in the case of an extraordinary being must also be extraordinary before belief can be justified.
Does Santa Claus exist? Hell yes, I�ve seen a hundred of them with my own eyes. I�ll leave it to you to determine who/what Santa Claus is and what they can/cannot do based on your own observations and experience. Don�t just take my word for it.
Waldo - I used the word, "meagre," to describe a worldview that you share with others, that is simply limited to what your five senses tell you.
Your expansion on that to include scientific discoveries, such as X-Rays etc, goes nowhere, as you still rule out what is possible, ie spiritual, because some scientist hasn't yet invented a spiritual spectrometer capable of detecting spiritual activity.
The fact that many people feel connected spiritually to the Creator, is anaethema to you, and you refuse to believe them. In that sense do I use the word, "meagre."
Your expansion on that to include scientific discoveries, such as X-Rays etc, goes nowhere, as you still rule out what is possible, ie spiritual, because some scientist hasn't yet invented a spiritual spectrometer capable of detecting spiritual activity.
The fact that many people feel connected spiritually to the Creator, is anaethema to you, and you refuse to believe them. In that sense do I use the word, "meagre."
I fully respect everyones right to live their lives witout hurting others (RE previous answers), I respect anyones right not to believe in God (no skin off my nose) the point I'm trying to make is this. 1 Why can't people disagree on this matter without resorting to childish name calling, one of the greatest men whoever lived (Martin Luther King) said some people "cannot disagree without being disagreeable". 2 I'm not a Jehovahs Witness (never will be, too dogmatic for my taste) but I have friends who are, they celebrate Christmas without presents. It's called taking a stand for what you believe in. A man should only face one way on an issue, you talk long and hard against the idea of a creator, then celebrate christmas and probably Easter. Do you not feel that this is a high blood pressure of words matched by an anaemia of deeds? Is that no more irrational or hypocritical than other posts?
P.S.
To my mind (at least) it's what we do with our life on Earth, not what we think that counts. If we live our lives in the service of others then we do Gods work. If we respect and help those we disagree with, we do Gods work as in the tale of the good Samaritan. Whether you believe in him or not.
If God exists in your heart and your mind then he exists, if he does'nt, then he does'nt.
It is how we express our belief, or lack of it, that create the hells on this Earth.
I am strong proponent of free will, I blame myself for my mistakes, and I hold others accountable for theirs. Wars, murder etc.
I am happy for anyone to believe in anything that makes them happy and allows them to understand their environment, if atheism makes you happy. Then I'm happy to accept that. I just wish that others could be so accepting in noting that my reasoning is just as valid as yours or anyone elses. Mutual respect is what's called for. I respect anyone who stands up for what they believe in, and tries to live by it. I propose a new bank holiday for all the atheists, so that they can buy each presents and celebrate themselves, and why not?
It is how we express our belief, or lack of it, that create the hells on this Earth.
I am strong proponent of free will, I blame myself for my mistakes, and I hold others accountable for theirs. Wars, murder etc.
I am happy for anyone to believe in anything that makes them happy and allows them to understand their environment, if atheism makes you happy. Then I'm happy to accept that. I just wish that others could be so accepting in noting that my reasoning is just as valid as yours or anyone elses. Mutual respect is what's called for. I respect anyone who stands up for what they believe in, and tries to live by it. I propose a new bank holiday for all the atheists, so that they can buy each presents and celebrate themselves, and why not?
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.