Omnipotence Negates Free Will

[omega_weapon]

I would love for you to, but I think it would go off topic.

[Apoo]

Sorry for not replying to this thread in a while, but I'm too lazy. I'm not going to reply to everything, only the most important points. Just promise you won't write too much in your response. >_-

No, you yourself claimed it couldnt be debated upon.

You do realize that YOU are the one who is using this 'logic-transcendent' definition of omnipotence right? You are forced to accept that this god has to be omniscient for your argument to work. Only problem is, this a contradiction, and you realize this.

I understand logical paradoxes just fine thankyou.
I'm simply laughing at the ridiculous prospect made by you about "Debating the "less illogical" when everything we are debating is completly illogical.

I'm aware of this, however your silly little nitpicking of "This is more illogical than that" is ultimately asanine.

I'm not sure you do. Logical contradictions do just that, contradict logic. You can imagine a million different objects of different shapes and sizes, but you can never imagine a square circle, or a rectangular triangle. One can easily imagine a being powerful enough (magic, alchemy, super-powers) transforming the moon into cheese, but one hard as one might try, will never be able to imagine the making of a square circle. That's because example 1 doesn't contradict logic, and 2 does.

I'm willing to argue that it is possible a powerful being might be able to do something like 1, but there is no way we can argue he can do 2, because 2 is not logical. If we say that this being can bend logic, then there is no reason to get into a debate, as there's no sense is debating something that makes no sense, savvy?

Then you are willing to argue about a god who can change perception of lesser beings konwn as humans, as he see's fit, and whatever he wishes(conerning morality) becomes reality.
.

What do you mean by 'change perception' of humans? Yes, whatever god wishes concerning morality becomes reality. But according to the moral guidelines he gave us, the ones we are supposed to be following, something akin to what he is doing (assuming he is changing the laws) is immoral. According to the laws he gave us, deceiving people for no apparent reason is immoral. If he is doing this, then according to the rules he gave us, he is a liar. Someone who established seemingly fair rules, would not change them suddenly for no reason, and if this happens, we would not think of this person as just. Based on his own rule, we are supposed to label his behavior as immoral. If he changes things so that this is no longer immoral and we're never informed, how is this fair?

You realize with your arguements, you are basically saying god is unknowable at all.
Which would void your "He is untrustworthy" arguement.
If we cant know what he will do, or what he thinks, then believing and disbelieving are equally valid.

I didn't mean untrustworthy in a bad way. I meant it in the sense as since you don't know anything, it makes no sense to trust him. You usually need a reason to believe, you don't believe in something just because there is no evidence to disbelieve it. You need evidence, a reason to believe in any proposition. If there is no reason to trust this god, why would you?

It is dishonest to ask me a question, in which you cannot provide evidence of the contrary

But your argument was that God's word is absolute, I'm asking you what's the evidence in support of this claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Lol you cant be fucking serious.

Do you realize what you just said?
Why bohther with all that when you might have no reason too?
You might aswell ask"Why forgo it, when you might have reason too?

Are you seriously advocating not to do somthing, simply becuase you might not have a reason to do it?

How in gods name does that make any sense to you?
I might aswell forgo doing anything, because of the possibility it wont pay off in the end.
What a pathetic defeatist arguement.

I won't accept something just because there is no reason why I should distrust it. I need a reason for accepting it. Why would I trust god if he's unknowable?

I see no evidence that he is.

I see no evidence he isn't, therefore I see no reason to trust him. Can you provide me with a reason to trust him that overshadows the possibility that he is playing me like a fool? Your point was that people who go against god go to hell, or so according to the scriptures. But in light of the possibility that there is no evidence his word is absolute, the question becomes, where is the evidence his word is absolute and will never change it? You yourself have argued that he can change it at any time, but now you say you see no evidence of it? Make up your mind.

The ten commandments is proof that god distinguishes human morality and Divine morality(if it even exists)

How so?

"Thou shall not kill"
But god does.

God also tells humans to kill, and sanctions this. I see no distinction between this god morality of yours and 'human morality'.

If god adheres to ultimate truth, then he cant go beyond it.
If he could, and did, then he doesnt adhere to ultimate truth.

Correct. If god is all good, then by default he has to adhere to ultimate truth, or then the contradictions open up. The only way to escape this is god was not omnibenevolent.

Wrong, you cannot demand that i bring evidence of a possiblity while you simply state"Mine works with the simple possibility" now you are just being plain retarded.

You're arguement doesnt work any better than mine, when you ultimatley argue that god is unknowable, thus you cannot form an arguement he is untrustworthy.

But you know that I mean untrustworthy in the sense that there is no reason to trust him. You are making the claims that god has 'absolute moral rules for humans' you need evidence of how he does. I don't need any evidence, just posing the question "how does god have absolute moral rule for humans' does not require evidence that he doesn't, it's a question of certainty--how can you be sure, where is your proof?

Wrong those are exceptions, and since god is infalliable they are rightous.
The fact that he layed down commandments that would be followed, while those exceptions you listed were not in effect, is proof that the laws of man do no apply to god.

Even though he lay down commandments, he sanctioned instances where these commandments could be broken with no penalty. I see no reason to think there are two separate moralities as you claim, instead of reasoning that these exceptions are included in our own moral guidelines.

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by Tony

I'm not sure you do. Logical contradictions do just that, contradict logic. You can imagine a million different objects of different shapes and sizes, but you can never imagine a square circle, or a rectangular triangle. One can easily imagine a being powerful enough (magic, alchemy, super-powers) transforming the moon into cheese, but one hard as one might try, will never be able to imagine the making of a square circle. That's because example 1 doesn't contradict logic, and 2 does.

.................................................. ...

I think you are confused.

Just becuase somthing can be imagined, doesnt mean it doesnt contradict what logic tell's us is right or wrong.
Just becuase i can imagine someone shooting laserbeams out of their eyes, doesnt mean its no longer illogical.

Logical contradictions, are paradoxes, self referencing ideas that are meaningless.
Such as the statement"Everything i say is a lie" thats a logical paradox.

A human flying without any sort of flying equipment is imaginable, but it goes againts logic.

Originally Posted by Tony

What do you mean by 'change perception' of humans? Yes, whatever god wishes concerning morality becomes reality. But according to the moral guidelines he gave us, the ones we are supposed to be following, something akin to what he is doing (assuming he is changing the laws) is immoral.

However the point is moot, he can change not only you perceptions that, that sort of deception is immoral, but he can make it reality.

Thus saying that, is pointless.

But its not a deception, since i have stated time and time again those rules were not for god, but for humans.

Originally Posted by Tony

According to the laws he gave us, deceiving people for no apparent reason is immoral. If he is doing this, then according to the rules he gave us, he is a liar. Someone who established seemingly fair rules, would not change them suddenly for no reason, and if this happens, we would not think of this person as just.

But how do mans laws apply to god?

How does a rule that applies strictly to students, apply to a teacher?

Originally Posted by Tony

Based on his own rule, we are supposed to label his behavior as immoral. If he changes things so that this is no longer immoral and we're never informed, how is this fair?

How can you say anything is fair or unfair?
He is god, how does fair or unfair apply to an almighty god?

Originally Posted by Tony

I didn't mean untrustworthy in a bad way. I meant it in the sense as since you don't know anything, it makes no sense to trust him.

It makes no sense not to trust him, since its just as possible to be right in your belief as disbelief.

Originally Posted by Tony

You usually need a reason to believe, you don't believe in something just because there is no evidence to disbelieve it. You need evidence, a reason to believe in any proposition. If there is no reason to trust this god, why would you?

If he is unknowable, there is no reason to trust him, while simultaniously there is no reason not to trust him.

Originally Posted by Tony

But your argument was that God's word is absolute, I'm asking you what's the evidence in support of this claim. The burden of proof is on you.

If god couldnt make his word law, then he wouldnt be an almighty god.

Originally Posted by Tony

I won't accept something just because there is no reason why I should distrust it. I need a reason for accepting it. Why would I trust god if he's unknowable?

Basically, there is an equal chance to be right in trusting him, or wrong in trusting him.
So doing one or the other is equally valid.

Originally Posted by Tony

I see no evidence he isn't, therefore I see no reason to trust him. Can you provide me with a reason to trust him that overshadows the possibility that he is playing me like a fool?

You are asking me to show evidence, while you are simply talking of a possibility?
What bullshit is this?

Originally Posted by Tony

You yourself have argued that he can change it at any time, but now you say you see no evidence of it? Make up your mind.

No i said he can, but i see no evidence that he is decieving.

Originally Posted by Tony

How so?

The commandments dont apply to god, he can go againts them since they are his rules.

Originally Posted by Tony

God also tells humans to kill, and sanctions this. I see no distinction between this god morality of yours and 'human morality'.

No he tells humans to kill when it is religiously justified, normal instances do not count.
Dont bash me saying thats evil or wrong, i dont believe in that, im simply stating the factual.

Originally Posted by Tony

Correct. If god is all good, then by default he has to adhere to ultimate truth, or then the contradictions open up. The only way to escape this is god was not omnibenevolent.

What are you drunk?

Where have i argued that he is omnibenevolant?

Originally Posted by Tony

But you know that I mean untrustworthy in the sense that there is no reason to trust him. You are making the claims that god has 'absolute moral rules for humans' you need evidence of how he does.

No i dont, since we are debating over an allmighty god, its already an accepted idea that he can mandate an absolute moral code for a lesser form of being.

Originally Posted by Tony

I don't need any evidence, just posing the question "how does god have absolute moral rule for humans' does not require evidence that he doesn't, it's a question of certainty--how can you be sure, where is your proof?

Now you're asking for proof? Evidence on debate subject that by its nature is theoretical?
You do remember insin stating for the sake of the debate, that god exists and that he is omnipotent?
Since we have already gone back and forth about what omnipotence is, basically its anything that is concievable(imaginable), and which is not a logical paradox.

That is my evidence, the context of the debate clearly lays out the idea that god is allpowerful, thus he is capable of creating an absolute system of morals for a lower lifeform, humans.

There is no actual evidence or proof, were talking about an unprovable being to start with. But the debates requires you to accept his omnipotence and existance for the sake of the debate.

Originally Posted by Tony

Even though he lay down commandments, he sanctioned instances where these commandments could be broken with no penalty.

Thus an exception.

Breaking those commandments in any other situation would go againts the rules.
If a principal mandates that no one may bring soda's to school, but on the last day of school allows kids to bring them, thats an exception, and only on those cirumstances can the rules be broken, but they technically werent being broken, since the principal allowed them to bring them.

Now does this mean that students can bring soda's to school everyday of the week now?

NO.

[MaN013]

Rules.... why fear god when it is said that he should be loved is god the answer to any problem.. is the fact of going to pray ease all our sins... does god change the fact that millions die and thousands are rich and fat... is that what we poor humans call destiny...
do the poor and the dead exist to keep balance of good and bad in this world.. if we do whatever any religious book tells us do we have more chences to survive in this world...
THoses are the questions that stay unanswered until now... those are the questions that lay unheard until now is it not?... just a thought guys.. nothing personal....

[rising crescent]

But how do mans laws apply to god?

How does a rule that applies strictly to students, apply to a teacher?

man Laws are produced by their own knowledge. They dont follow/reject true Knowledges in Holy Book brought by prophet to Recall bring forth in Human

I don't need any evidence, just posing the question "how does god have absolute moral rule for humans' does not require evidence that he doesn't, it's a question of certainty--how can you be sure, where is your proof?

simple. Just Prove Lesson in Holy Book..Right or wrong.Are they bring Cosmos Order or Chaos character morals? but remember, The Time response is Long not short (reproduceable in short take timeplace)

for ex : in Holy Book, child is forbidden to enter their oarents room in 3 region of time daily life. because in that 3 time,parents take out their formal clothes.
The Result is not occured in child age, but when they adult they have better moral characters than child who enters their parents room in that 3 region time