Disproving the Existence of God

[Hairyloon]

English translation, please.

Why must god be omnipotent?

If somebody turned up who could fling thunderbolts, raise the dead, etc; and they claimed to be (a) god, on what basis would you argue that they are not?

[Hairyloon]

I know. I wouldn't think you were going wrong if you had got it, would I?

Shall we try again?

 

The Bible says that what is impossible for man is possible for god. (or words to that effect).

 

The Dawkinites cite that as proof that the Christians believe god is omnipotent.

 

You have given several examples of things that would have been impossible for man, but are now routine.

Therefore the stated text in no way suggests omnipotence.

[redwhine]

Why must god be omnipotent?

If somebody turned up who could fling thunderbolts, raise the dead, etc; and they claimed to be (a) god, on what basis would you argue that they are not?

If they could do those things, I wouldn't argue with them.

 

If they claimed to be able to do those things, I'd treat it with the same amount of credence as their claim to be god. (...i.e. require evidence.)

 

I've raised the dead several times. If you try it, I advise you wear shoulder pads - those coffins dig into you something wicked!

[redwhine]

Shall we try again?

No. I'm not going to cheat on my new girlfriend.

 

The Bible says that what is impossible for man is possible for god. (or words to that effect).

 

The Dawkinites cite that as proof that the Christians believe god is omnipotent.

Have you any evidence of that, or is it merely blind unsupported allegation?

 

You have given several examples of things that would have been impossible for man, but are now routine.

Therefore the stated text in no way suggests omnipotence.

Whatever can be done now has always been possible, but previous generations lacked the technology to do them.

 

You're still not getting it.

[six45ive]

You still have provided no basis for this statement... Except that it provides you with an easily provable argument.

 

If you wish to start a thread titled something along the lines of; 'Does a god have to be all powerful to be a god?' then you're free to do so except that's not what this thread is about. It's about evidence to disprove the god that I highlighted in the opening post, that's confirmed by numerous texts in the bible and that also fits in with the definition of a theistic god as described here; http://www.answers.com/topic/theism.

[six45ive]

Which only goes to show that you have paid not one whit of attention to anything I have said... which comes as no surprise whatsoever.

 

No because most of what you've said is either irrelevent to this thread or fallacious nonsense.

 

I have said from the beginning that an omnipotent god is an impossibility, but something might exist that some might call "god".

 

My bold. It might and as I previously said those people would then be deluding themselves.

 

Then again, there is the "Original Earth" hypothesis, which suggests that we are all artificial inteligences in an artificial reality.

I don't believe it myself, but I don't see how to dismiss it as impossible. In fact, I find the bible emtirely consistent with such a model.

Would not the creators of such an artificial reality be analogous to God?

And consider what power they would have in such a universe. Yes, they probably could do anything, but would that make them omnipotent?

Only sort of, I think. And to exert such omnipotence would spoil the experiment.

 

I think that as humans we have a very fertile imagination which is obviously different to reality.

[six45ive]

Lengthy, detailed but still bad arguments..

 

Would you like to give some detail as to why you think this way rather than just asserting that they're bad arguments.

 

Don't you have anything intelligent or new to show ? Been a while since I have been here but it could just as easily been a post from a good few months ago!

 

Why is it important to have something new? If an argument works and is watertight (which this one is) the time period is irrelevent. The piece in my OP is basically a longer version of this;

 

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?”

 

Epicurus; 341 BCE – Athens, 270 BCE

 

This seems cut and pasted from RDN.

 

Yes. The clue's in the link at the bottom of the article.

 

Would that be these aliens ?

Z

 

I'm at work atm and can't access YouTube so I'll take a look later.

[Hairyloon]

If you wish to start a thread titled something along the lines of; 'Does a god have to be all powerful to be a god?' then you're free to do so except that's not what this thread is about.

Then why not title this thread "disproving the existence of an omnipotent god"?

Or even more appropriate: "Why the God worshipped by Christians cannot exist."

As is, the thread is open to discussion about anything that one might reasonably define as "god".

If you want to keep the discussion unadulterated, then you should label it properly.

It's about evidence to disprove the god that I highlighted in the opening post,

No, it is about logical argument. There is no evidence.

that's confirmed by numerous texts in the bible

Which you are yet to cite.

and that also fits in with the definition of a theistic god as described here; http://www.answers.com/topic/theism.

Does cut and paste not work on your keyboard, or is it jammed on Dawkins?

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

I take it that you do not mean the actual definition here, but the "especially" bit: "Belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."

Again that does not say "omnipotent".

[flamingjimmy]

Then why not title this thread "disproving the existence of an omnipotent god"?

Or even more appropriate: "Why the God worshipped by Christians cannot exist."

As is, the thread is open to discussion about anything that one might reasonably define as "god".

If you want to keep the discussion unadulterated, then you should label it properly.

 

Was it really too much to expect you to read the OP before posting, where it was well clarified what was meant?

 

Or do you not go for that, you just read the thread title and then jump straight in?

[redwhine]

As is, the thread is open to discussion about anything that one might reasonably define as "god".

A reasonable definition of god?

 

Oxymoron alert!