Gods never care anyhow!

[flamingjimmy]

To conclude, God can create stone that is heavier than anything we can imagine, but He will always be able to move the stone, what must be understood is that failure is not an aspect of omnipotence.

 

Yes it is, it is you who does not understand.

 

By definition, if one does not have the power to do absolutely everything, and I mean everything, even fail, then one cannot possibly be all powerful.

 

And you're right, it would be impossible for anything to be all powerful, that is exactly what I'm saying.

[DragonofAna]

Yes it is, it is you who does not understand.

 

By definition, if one does not have the power to do absolutely everything, and I mean everything, even fail, then one cannot possibly be all powerful.

 

And your right, it would be impossible for anything to be all powerful, that is exactly what I'm saying.

 

If struggling - include a paradox. A paradox that is only limited by human perception that something either is, or it isn't. However - for god something may be and may not be at the same time, because he/she is not limited in the same way as us.

 

If a god can do everything, even fail, then if he succeeds in failing then he has not failed, but if he fails at failing then he must have succeeded so a god can only actually succeed.

 

Sorted.

[flamingjimmy]

If struggling - include a paradox. A paradox that is only limited by human perception that something either is, or it isn't. However - for god something may be and may not be at the same time, because he/she is not limited in the same way as us.

 

If a god can do everything, even fail, then if he succeeds in failing then he has not failed, but if he fails at failing then he must have succeeded so a god can only actually succeed.

 

That doesn't work, if god can succeed in failing as you put it, ie. in our example that would mean he can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, then the fact still remains that he can't lift the rock, that is a limit to his (sorry, her) power, and she cannot be omnipotent.

[Grahame]

That doesn't work, if god can succeed in failing as you put it, ie. in our example that would mean he can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, then the fact still remains that he can't lift the rock, that is a limit to his (sorry, her) power, and she cannot be omnipotent.

 

RedRobbo implied that people who believe in God should pray that the rock is moved in order to prevent catastrophe. This is a little like the holiday maker who prays for fine weather, while the farmer prays for rain.

 

It isn't that God cannot do it but rather in this case the weather systems are as they are at that particular moment in time for a reason. Otherwise a change in the weather in one country could produce catastrophic events in another country.

 

Likewise if God were to move a very large rock, say the earth, we would no longer exist.

 

It is not a case of testing God, or belittling him, but rather thanking him for his handiwork.

[DragonofAna]

That doesn't work, if god can succeed in failing as you put it, ie. in our example that would mean he can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, then the fact still remains that he can't lift the rock, that is a limit to his (sorry, her) power, and she cannot be omnipotent.

 

Like I said - all depends on your take, and how you keep changing the paradox. The object that can move anything meeting an object that cannot be moved by anything - in your great wisdom enlighten us as to what will happen?

 

Using paradoxes will never disprove the existance of god to people. All it shows is that we are limited and cannot see the third option.

[flamingjimmy]

Like I said - all depends on your take, and how you keep changing the paradox. The object that can move anything meeting an object that cannot be moved by anything - in your great wisdom enlighten us as to what will happen?

 

Using paradoxes will never disprove the existance of god to people. All it shows is that we are limited and cannot see the third option.

 

On what grounds do you assert that there is a third option?

 

Until I see any evidence otherwise, I don't believe that there is one.

[DragonofAna]

On what grounds do you assert that there is a third option?

 

Until I see any evidence otherwise, I don't believe that there is one.

 

Hey - I just prefer talking about paradoxes and logic than about continuing this thread which is really pretty much dead now. Sorry. I'll leave you to it.

 

*nicks meltheball's coat and heads for the door*

[redrobbo]

RedRobbo implied that people who believe in God should pray that the rock is moved in order to prevent catastrophe. This is a little like the holiday maker who prays for fine weather, while the farmer prays for rain.

 

It isn't that God cannot do it but rather in this case the weather systems are as they are at that particular moment in time for a reason. Otherwise a change in the weather in one country could produce catastrophic events in another country.

 

Likewise if God were to move a very large rock, say the earth, we would no longer exist.

 

It is not a case of testing God, or belittling him, but rather thanking him for his handiwork.

 

Not quite what I implied Grahame. This is the question I asked....

...

 

I'm always confused by those who pray to their god to assist the victims of natural disasters.

 

Wouldn't it be more useful for believers to pray to their god to prevent natural disasters occuring in the first place, and thus prevent any suffering?

 

Or doesn't god respond to prayers?

 

I never mentioned catastrophes caused by weather systems Grahame, though I accept that these do indeed cause catastrophes, e.g., Hurricane Katrina.

 

I mentioned natural disasters. What I had in mind was the recent earthquakes in Haiti, Chile and China. Earthquakes are not caused by weather systems, so I'll refine my question -

 

Wouldn't it be more useful for believers to pray to their god to prevent earthquakes occuring in the first place, and thus prevent any suffering?

 

It strikes me as somewhat odd that folk pray to their gods for those who suffer when an earthquake strikes, so why don't god believers pray to prevent any suffering occuring by asking their gods not to let earthquakes occur at all?

 

Would prayer be a waste of time and effort because gods can't or won't prevent earthquakes, or, as the OP suggests - gods never care anyhow?

[Grahame]

Not quite what I implied Grahame. This is the question I asked....

 

 

I never mentioned catastrophes caused by weather systems Grahame, though I accept that these do indeed cause catastrophes, e.g., Hurricane Katrina.

 

I mentioned natural disasters. What I had in mind was the recent earthquakes in Haiti, Chile and China. Earthquakes are not caused by weather systems, so I'll refine my question -

 

Wouldn't it be more useful for believers to pray to their god to prevent earthquakes occuring in the first place, and thus prevent any suffering?

 

It strikes me as somewhat odd that folk pray to their gods for those who suffer when an earthquake strikes, so why don't god believers pray to prevent any suffering occuring by asking their gods not to let earthquakes occur at all?

 

Would prayer be a waste of time and effort because gods can't or won't prevent earthquakes, or, as the OP suggests - gods never care anyhow?

 

I never pray like that. it almost seems to me as though I am telling God what to do, plus the fact I never ask God for anything. I praise and thank him for what he has done in my life and I ask that he will guide me in all that I do and say at work and at home, and that he will keep my family safe. Also I bring other people before the Lord in prayer that he will keep, guide and protect them.

 

If I were to pray along those lines it would be for people not to build cities on fault lines where earthquakes are known to occur and not to build villages at the foot of volcanoes or where they might be swamped by the sea.

[SHsheff]

I never pray like that. it almost seems to me as though I am telling God what to do, plus the fact I never ask God for anything. I praise and thank him for what he has done in my life and I ask that he will guide me in all that I do and say at work and at home, and that he will keep my family safe. Also I bring other people before the Lord in prayer that he will keep, guide and protect them.

 

If I were to pray along those lines it would be for people not to build cities on fault lines where earthquakes are known to occur and not to build villages at the foot of volcanoes or where they might be swamped by the sea.

 

So why doesn't God protect people who have no choice but to live in the 40,000 square miles of the Bengal delta?

 

It baffles me that you as a man who has evident intelligence and education (in that he can string words together) can't see the flaws in his argument, and still maintains a faith in something that clearly doesn't exist. Or, if it/He does, is cruel beyond belief. Why would anyone want to believe in a God that permits disasters that wipe out so many innocent people?

 

Surely it's better to acknowledge that it's a natural disaster, and thus totally impersonal albeit tragic to those afflicted.

 

Why would you want to worship a God who perpetrates such attrocities?