RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster

RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/24/2017 4:58:06 AM)
One would think, but then again he is claiming "omniscient" means not knowing some things, so who knows.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/24/2017 4:20:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Because if anything else in existence has free will, then God cannot possibly be omnipotent. Hence all of the stuff people like Augustine and Leibniz tied themselves into pretzels making excuses for Him. Are you sure you've read around this? Sorry, I still don't see the connection that all powerful has to do with free will, all knowing yes, all powerful no. Something being all powerful precludes anything else having free will, because if anything else has free will than its power over that is limited. Simple, no? Okay but I think we may be talking about two different things. When think of omnipotence I think of abundant dynamic energy but you seem to be talking about a type of "rulership" or as you say "power" over another and to me that is not included in omnipotence.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/24/2017 4:49:04 PM)
Wow, so you just make up definitions as you go along then, eh?

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/25/2017 4:37:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Because if anything else in existence has free will, then God cannot possibly be omnipotent. Hence all of the stuff people like Augustine and Leibniz tied themselves into pretzels making excuses for Him. Are you sure you've read around this? Sorry, I still don't see the connection that all powerful has to do with free will, all knowing yes, all powerful no. Something being all powerful precludes anything else having free will, because if anything else has free will than its power over that is limited. Simple, no? Okay but I think we may be talking about two different things. When think of omnipotence I think of abundant dynamic energy but you seem to be talking about a type of "rulership" or as you say "power" over another and to me that is not included in omnipotence. I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/25/2017 5:18:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms. Not being a member of "the church" and not being a big fan of its "religious philosophers" I wasn't aware of their deciding to change the meaning of omnipotence to rulership or to include rulership in the meaning of omnipotence. In any case, I still don't see how God's rulership and Free Will are contradictory. Why would anyone believe that God would have to rule every facet of a person's life or even want to. God allowing someone to choose what shirt to wear rather than choosing for him does not diminish God's rulership.

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/25/2017 8:24:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms. Not being a member of "the church" and not being a big fan of its "religious philosophers" I wasn't aware of their deciding to change the meaning of omnipotence to rulership or to include rulership in the meaning of omnipotence. In any case, I still don't see how God's rulership and Free Will are contradictory. Why would anyone believe that God would have to rule every facet of a person's life or even want to. God allowing someone to choose what shirt to wear rather than choosing for him does not diminish God's rulership. Tell you what: name me an exponent of the theodicy excuse who wasn't a member of an established church, and then we can leave the churches that produced Augustine, Irenaeus, Leibniz, Weber, Kempf and Hick (who converted to some evangelical heresy or other, but was raised Catholic). Hard as it may be to credit, most of those who make excuses for God tend to be either Catholic or Anglican.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/25/2017 9:34:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms. Not being a member of "the church" and not being a big fan of its "religious philosophers" I wasn't aware of their deciding to change the meaning of omnipotence to rulership or to include rulership in the meaning of omnipotence. In any case, I still don't see how God's rulership and Free Will are contradictory. Why would anyone believe that God would have to rule every facet of a person's life or even want to. God allowing someone to choose what shirt to wear rather than choosing for him does not diminish God's rulership. Tell you what: name me an exponent of the theodicy excuse who wasn't a member of an established church, and then we can leave the churches that produced Augustine, Irenaeus, Leibniz, Weber, Kempf and Hick (who converted to some evangelical heresy or other, but was raised Catholic). Hard as it may be to credit, most of those who make excuses for God tend to be either Catholic or Anglican. How about me, I'm neither Catholic or Anglican, although I wouldn't exactly call myself an "exponent of the theodicy excuse".

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/25/2017 10:41:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms. Not being a member of "the church" and not being a big fan of its "religious philosophers" I wasn't aware of their deciding to change the meaning of omnipotence to rulership or to include rulership in the meaning of omnipotence. In any case, I still don't see how God's rulership and Free Will are contradictory. Why would anyone believe that God would have to rule every facet of a person's life or even want to. God allowing someone to choose what shirt to wear rather than choosing for him does not diminish God's rulership. Tell you what: name me an exponent of the theodicy excuse who wasn't a member of an established church, and then we can leave the churches that produced Augustine, Irenaeus, Leibniz, Weber, Kempf and Hick (who converted to some evangelical heresy or other, but was raised Catholic). Hard as it may be to credit, most of those who make excuses for God tend to be either Catholic or Anglican. How about me, I'm neither Catholic or Anglican, although I wouldn't exactly call myself an "exponent of the theodicy excuse". What have you published on the subject?

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/25/2017 9:08:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms. Not being a member of "the church" and not being a big fan of its "religious philosophers" I wasn't aware of their deciding to change the meaning of omnipotence to rulership or to include rulership in the meaning of omnipotence. In any case, I still don't see how God's rulership and Free Will are contradictory. Why would anyone believe that God would have to rule every facet of a person's life or even want to. God allowing someone to choose what shirt to wear rather than choosing for him does not diminish God's rulership. Tell you what: name me an exponent of the theodicy excuse who wasn't a member of an established church, and then we can leave the churches that produced Augustine, Irenaeus, Leibniz, Weber, Kempf and Hick (who converted to some evangelical heresy or other, but was raised Catholic). Hard as it may be to credit, most of those who make excuses for God tend to be either Catholic or Anglican. How about me, I'm neither Catholic or Anglican, although I wouldn't exactly call myself an "exponent of the theodicy excuse". What have you published on the subject? Are you going to discuss this or not?

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/26/2017 3:47:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms. Not being a member of "the church" and not being a big fan of its "religious philosophers" I wasn't aware of their deciding to change the meaning of omnipotence to rulership or to include rulership in the meaning of omnipotence. In any case, I still don't see how God's rulership and Free Will are contradictory. Why would anyone believe that God would have to rule every facet of a person's life or even want to. God allowing someone to choose what shirt to wear rather than choosing for him does not diminish God's rulership. Tell you what: name me an exponent of the theodicy excuse who wasn't a member of an established church, and then we can leave the churches that produced Augustine, Irenaeus, Leibniz, Weber, Kempf and Hick (who converted to some evangelical heresy or other, but was raised Catholic). Hard as it may be to credit, most of those who make excuses for God tend to be either Catholic or Anglican. How about me, I'm neither Catholic or Anglican, although I wouldn't exactly call myself an "exponent of the theodicy excuse". What have you published on the subject? Are you going to discuss this or not? If all you're going to do is avoid answering any points that are made by insisting that words don't mean what they're normally agreed to mean if them meaning that doesn't suit your argument, then there isn't a lot of point in my bothering, is there?

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/26/2017 7:26:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods If all you're going to do is avoid answering any points that are made by insisting that words don't mean what they're normally agreed to mean if them meaning that doesn't suit your argument, then there isn't a lot of point in my bothering, is there? That's up to you. As far as I know God has never applied the words omnipotence or omniscience to himself, so forcing them on him with your preconceived notions of what they are supposed to mean and how they describe God is a little like building a box and saying God doesn't exist because he doesn't fit in your box.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/26/2017 7:37:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods If all you're going to do is avoid answering any points that are made by insisting that words don't mean what they're normally agreed to mean if them meaning that doesn't suit your argument, then there isn't a lot of point in my bothering, is there? You see the thing is I'm not discussing these things to "win" an argument or to convince others that God exists but to take the parameters of what God probably is and what appears to be the conditions of the world around us and show that there can be a logical possibility that God exist.

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/26/2017 7:56:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Those who tell me I need to have a savior, those that denigrate with such as, I lead a desolate and hateful life because I feel I don't need a savior. Those that continue to contend that I (and others) are somehow morally or socially defective because I/we are non-believers. That's who and what they do that at times...makes me mad. In fact, in my lifetime, it is the believers that get mad at me for...not believing, just like them. one thing this thread has proven is that atheists lack in a lot more than just belief, they have little to no knowledge of the 3 cousins, metaphysics, theology, or the supernatural, and as we can see creationism is thriving, atheism is in the dumpster.

Page: << < prev 44 45 46 47 [48]

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.15625