The illogics of Judeo-Christian God

[Acriku]

Ok, let's go over the illogics of the Judeo-Christian god - not just any god, but a god with attributes that make it impossible to exist.

Let's get some definitions in here first.

Judeo-Christian God - the God depicted in the Bible, and Torah.

Omniscience - all-knowing, the knowing of everything everytime.

Omnipotence - all-powerful, the ability of doing anything, everything, and any- and everytime; power without limits.

Omnibenevolence - all-loving; perfectly good.

There shouldn't be any disputes on these definitions, and if there are then not only are you making up your own definition, but you are changing things to fit you.

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and none of this should either be disputed (for christians here at this board).

Let's break it down.

God is omnipotent. Therefore, he can create a rock (using the traditional example) that he cannot lift. But then again, that makes a limit to his power, and that is impossible if he omnipotent. But if it impossible, then God cannot do it, and thus not omnipotent. With omnipotence, there should not be any limits. That includes limits of logic, because those limits are still limits, and applying limits to the omnipotent god would not make it omnipotent, and thus not an omnipotent god.

This brings up my point, that omnipotence is a paradox in itself and has always been a paradox in itself, it has been logically impossible. Applying it to the Judeo-Christian God simply makes the Judeo-Christian God impossible. Applying it to anything makes it impossible. My imaginary friend is Bob, he is omnipotent. He is impossible *poof* he cannot exist.

God is omniscient. If God is omniscient, then free will becomes moot. Especially God's own free will. If God has free will, and he knows what he is going to do in 30 seconds (perspectively from Earth), and can change it, then he is not omniscient as he would not know that he would change whatever he was going to do in 30 seconds. If he can't change it, then he has no free will and also not omnipotent. If he can change it, but never does, then he does not have free will, and thus not omnipotent, because the first time he does change it he becomes non-omniscient. So, he is bound by this, and cannot change it, thus non-omnipotent.

Our free will becomes moot as well, because God knows exactly what we are going to do, and we are bound by whatever God knows what we will do. Like knowing the script before the play, only we don't know it's a play and what is in the script. If god does not know what exactly we are going to do, then he isn't omniscient.

God is omnibenevolent. This is a strange one, considering all of the bad things that God has admitted to do. In the testaments, God had once killed two entire cities...

Sodom and Gomorrah (two cities that were wicked): God allowed Lot (a nephew of Abram) and his family to leave while God destroyed the cities. Lot's wife looked back at the cities, against instructions of God, and was turned into a "pillar of salt" (Genesis 19:26).

God had once killed the entire world except for 8 people...

A large population occurred and humans had become wicked, so God told Noah that He was to destroy the life but that Noah (the truly righteous person of the time) would be saved, along with his family and a pair of each kind of bird and animal and reptile. Noah built a boat according to God's instruction ([Genesis 6:15]

God had once casted out the entire human race (two people) from the Garden of Eden on account of Lucifer's evil ways; including the condemning all of the generations to come because of what two people did, similar to holding a grudge...

(Genesis 2,3): God provided the Garden of Eden, telling Adam and Eve not to eat fruit from the Tree of Conscience, since it provided awareness of right and wrong, good and bad, and caused eventual death. A snake convinced Eve to eat the fruit. This act condemned mankind to die and womankind to have painful childbirth, because God's instructions were not followed.

God once had wanted to exterminate all of Israeli's...

Exodus 32:7 And the LORD said to Moses, Go, go down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted [themselves]: 32:8 They have turned aside quickly from the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshiped it, and have sacrificed to it, and said, These are thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt. 32:9 And the LORD said to Moses, I have seen this people, and behold it [is] a stiff-necked people: 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

God had once spoken to his two witnesses, giving them the power to unleash plagues upon the earth...

Rev. 11:3 And I will give [power] to my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred [and] sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. 11:4 These are the two olive-trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

Believe me, the list goes on. This shows no sign of love, and no sign of benevolence. Just one of these things can make him non-omnibenevolent. God is not omnibenevolent.

All of these attributes are attributed to God, the Judeo-Christian God to be specific. If the attributes are impossible, or atleast one of them, then the god attributed with those attributes is impossible.

This in no way disproves any god, just the god(s) attributed with these attributes. A god without attributes is a god without disproof.

[Davidu]

The one that won't work will never do anything wrong, and if he doesen't do anything wrong then he deserves to be promoted. - mainly that's what you said in the last line: a non-existant god is better.

With all the other things I agree. The religion says one way, but the deeds show something else.

[emprworm]

refutation that Acriku ignored fully, now copied fully:

1. logic is always superior to illogic.

2. any attribute applied to something whos definition is inherently illogical will always be inferior to a logical definition of that attribute applied to it.

3. The most powerful definition, therefore, of an atribute would be one that could actually exist, as opposed to one that could not.

the atheist definition of Omnipotence.

"can god make a rock he cannot lift?" whether yes or no, God cannot do something, therefore he isn't omnimpotent, therefore God is a logical contradiction.

THe problem with that (very frequent) atheist argument is that it uses a definition of omnipotence that cannot exist. Omnipotence = the power to not be omnipotent = logical contradiction = cannot possibly exist.

The Bible never uses any such term to describe God. In fact, the Bible says "God cannot lie" basically: "God cannot cease being God". Does this mean that God is not all-powerful?

Of course not.

Lets look at this question:

"Can an infinite being cease being infinite?"

If yes, then God is an illogical, contradictory being that cannot exist. If he could, then he was obviously never infinite to begin with since his existence was ultimately limited, making the entire question a logical fallacy.

But remember the construct:

"2. any attribute applied to something whos definition is inherently illogical will always be inferior to a logical definition of that attribute applied to it."

So in the case of "Can God cease being God" the answer of NO is actually more powerful then the answer yes. Therefore if we define omnipotence as something that can actually exist- namely "all powerful within the confines of logic," then it is actually a stronger, superior definition of the atheist one that is contradictory and inferior.

God is defined as "omnipotent" but only omnipotent as a meaningful term that can actually exist. Defining omnipotence outside the confines of logic as something that cannot exist is inferior to defining omnipotent inside the confines of logic as something that can exist.

The atheist attempt to say that the Judeo-Christian God is defined as an illogical being fails. The Bible defines God's omnipotence as something that can actually exist- namely God can perform any task that is a logical one. Existence is superior to non-existence, and a God that can actually exist is superior to one that cannot, as the logical construct so clearly illustrates.

Of these two definitions of God.

1. God is all powerful, meaning He can stop being all powerful

2. God is all powerful, meaning He can do anything in agreement with His nature, but nothing contrary to His nature

Only defintion #2 is logially consistent and can actually exist, while #1 cannot possibly exist.

Therefore the God as defined in #2 is superior to the first one. And it is #2, btw, that the Bible defines.

And now to answer the quesiton:

"Can God make a rock he cannot lift?"

Answer: NO! And that is far more powerful of an answer then "yes", and is not contradictory at all. To think that He should be able to, makes him an inferior being to the one that cannot.

this refutation will be continuously posted until Acriku stops dodging it, or cuts with his atheistic definitions of God.

We are talking about the Biblical definition of God, not the Acriku Atheist definition. Until Acriku engages the Biblical definition of God and not his own made up deity, we are talking about 2 different concepts all together.

btw, the full refutation of acriku's argument was originally posted here: http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?board=2;action=display;threadid=8166;start=0 2 months ago and shockingly contains no debate from Acriku. Odd, since he seems to be so interested in this topic.

[emprworm]

and by the way, does anyone in here notice how Acriku compeletely avoids threads debating atheism (see my atheist statement of faith thread and the Logical Construct thread which refutes this whole post of his)?

funny how he hides behind his own threads, but cowers from other people's threads. I run from no atheist thread.

[nemafakei]

You've actively encouraged people to avoid the topics which they find distasteful or inflammatory when they so comment on threads in which you post. This could be an example of him doing this.

[emprworm]

fine, its a dodge regardless.

[Acriku]

Davidu, awaiting your clarification of your post, by IM if you wish.

empr, I did not ignore it: http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?board=34;action=display;threadid=9051;start=30 Go to the second-to-last post. As you all can see, empr ignores my posts.

But! I will post it, and add some in here since you might not even click on that link...

1. logic is always superior to illogic.

Define superior in this manner. Better? Easier?

2. any attribute applied to something whos definition is inherently illogical will always be inferior to a logical definition of that attribute applied to it.

In what way inferior? Something that has a definition that is illogical cannot be made logical by changing the definition, and still retain the same "something." You will be creating another, entirely different "something." Such as omnipotence. The definition is illogical. By making it logical you put limits to omnipotence. Now the definition of omnipotence has to change to remain logical, such as "all-powerful within its own nature," which is not omnipotence at all.

3. The most powerful definition, therefore, of an atribute would be one that could actually exist, as opposed to one that could not.

You are describing two different attributes, one that exists with its own definition, and one that doesn't exist with its own definition. Such as omnipotence again, once you put limits to the power of a omnipotent being, it does not still remain omnipotent, but semipotent*. Since omnipotence is attributed to the Judeo-Christian God, adding another attribute - semipotence - would take over the former attribute. So, are you saying your god is semipotent? Heck, I am semipotent. Nema is semipotent, even you are semipotent.

*Semipotence might be a real word, but in this case I made it up meaning semi-powerful.

the atheist definition of Omnipotence.

It is not the atheist definition of omnipotence, it is the definition, provide evidence that this is an atheist definition. The traditional definition of omnipotence is all-power.

THe problem with that (very frequent) atheist argument is that it uses a definition of omnipotence that cannot exist. Omnipotence = the power to not be omnipotent = logical contradiction = cannot possibly exist.

The definition most certainly exists, but omnipotence has always been illogical to begin with. Have you ever considered that "omnipotence" has never existed in the first place?

The Bible never uses any such term to describe God. In fact, the Bible says "God cannot lie" basically: "God cannot cease being God". Does this mean that God is not all-powerful?

In the bible, it says (as I have put in the very first post of this thread, which leads me to think you have not read it) Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. Also, it states that God is infinite, which omnipotence is drawn from. Does cannot mean not able to, or won't under such circumstances (as in upholding a good image of himself)?

If yes, then God is an illogical, contradictory being that cannot exist. If he could, then he was obviously never infinite to begin with since his existence was ultimately limited, making the entire question a logical fallacy.

Perhaps infinity is illogical to begin with, a paradox in itself?

But remember the construct:

"2. any attribute applied to something whos definition is inherently illogical will always be inferior to a logical definition of that attribute applied to it."

Read above.

So in the case of "Can God cease being God" the answer of NO is actually more powerful then the answer yes. Therefore if we define omnipotence as something that can actually exist- namely "all powerful within the confines of logic," then it is actually a stronger, superior definition of the atheist one that is contradictory and inferior.

In what way is No more powerful than Yes? "within the confines of logic" brings limits to god's omnipotence - contradicting itself. Like describing a circle with corners. Impossible. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that "all-power" is an atheist definition of omnipotence, and rather it is the traditional definition held by all (you being the exception).

God is defined as "omnipotent" but only omnipotent as a meaningful term that can actually exist. Defining omnipotence outside the confines of logic as something that cannot exist is inferior to defining omnipotent inside the confines of logic as something that can exist.

Omnipotence can never have a meaning that can be applied to something, because it is illogical to begin with. Also, you dig yourself deeper by adding limits to the already impossible definition, which makes it impossible for another reason.

The atheist attempt to say that the Judeo-Christian God is defined as an illogical being fails. The Bible defines God's omnipotence as something that can actually exist- namely God can perform any task that is a logical one. Existence is superior to non-existence, and a God that can actually exist is superior to one that cannot, as the logical construct so clearly illustrates.

I don't see failure anywhere, perhaps it is your own stench of failure in this argument that you are smelling? Just a thought. The bible defines God with an impossible definition, there is no way it can be defined with a possible definition of omnipotence, without making it something else - semipotence. I will repeat this again and again until you understand it. How did come to that existence is superior to non-existence? Define superior.

Of these two definitions of God.

1. God is all powerful, meaning He can stop being all powerful

2. God is all powerful, meaning He can do anything in agreement with His nature, but nothing contrary to His nature

#2 contradicts itself, by putting limits to the infinity of his power.

Only defintion #2 is logially consistent and can actually exist, while #1 cannot possibly exist.

Read above. Both cannot possibly exist. But #1 is applied to the Judeo-Christian God.

Therefore the God as defined in #2 is superior to the first one. And it is #2, btw, that the Bible defines.

Read above. The bible defines #1, for god is infinite, and nothing is impossible with god.

And now to answer the quesiton:

"Can God make a rock he cannot lift?"

Answer: NO! And that is far more powerful of an answer then "yes", and is not contradictory at all. To think that He should be able to, makes him an inferior being to the one that cannot.

Read above.

this refutation will be continuously posted until Acriku stops dodging it, or cuts with his atheistic definitions of God.

We are talking about the Biblical definition of God, not the Acriku Atheist definition. Until Acriku engages the Biblical definition of God and not his own made up deity, we are talking about 2 different concepts all together.

btw, the full refutation of acriku's argument was originally posted here: http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?board=2;action=display;threadid=8166;start=0 2 months ago and shockingly contains no debate from Acriku. Odd, since he seems to be so interested in this topic.

Read above.

and by the way, does anyone in here notice how Acriku compeletely avoids threads debating atheism (see my atheist statement of faith thread and the Logical Construct thread which refutes this whole post of his)?

funny how he hides behind his own threads, but cowers from other people's threads. I run from no atheist thread.

I avoided one thread about atheism, because of its rediculous nature. I cower from no thread, I simply refuse to post in such filth.

You've actively encouraged people to avoid the topics which they find distasteful or inflammatory when they so comment on threads in which you post. This could be an example of him doing this.

Exactly Nema, again your presence is appreciated.

fine, its a dodge regardless.

First he says we don't have to post in his posts, but then when we don't, we are accused of dodging it. Oh yes, that's empr for you :)

I smell fresh with mountain spring air, you stink of failure empr.

[emprworm]

1. logic is always superior to illogic.

Define superior in this manner. Better? Easier?

define define.

that was a pointless reply.

insomuch as you are about to use logic in order to say that illogic is greater than logic, you refute yourself.

2. any attribute applied to something whos definition is inherently illogical will always be inferior to a logical definition of that attribute applied to it.

In what way inferior? Something that has a definition that is illogical cannot be made logical by changing the definition, and still retain the same "something."

inferior as in it CANT EXIST!

You will be creating another, entirely different "something." Such as omnipotence. The definition is illogical. By making it logical you put limits to omnipotence. Now the definition of omnipotence has to change to remain logical, such as "all-powerful within its own nature," which is not omnipotence at all.

if you call "able to exist" a limit, then so be it. So, the Biblical Definition of God, then, "limits" the definition of God to something that can actually exist.

hmmmm....

Biblical Definition of God = can actually exist

Acriku's made-up definition of God = cannot possibly exist

yea, who's has the stronger definition, Acriku? lol!

even a gnat is stronger, more powerful than a being with your definition of "omnipotence" ascribed to it. Because the gnat can actually exist.

3. The most powerful definition, therefore, of an atribute would be one that could actually exist, as opposed to one that could not.

You are describing two different attributes, one that exists with its own definition, and one that doesn't exist with its own definition. Such as omnipotence again, once you put limits to the power of a omnipotent being, it does not still remain omnipotent, but semipotent*.

call it what you want, but there is no such attribute assigned to the Biblical God in the Bible.

There is no limit in God's power to perform any function that does not contradict God's nature. That is what the Bible describes.

God is LOGICALLY ALL-POWERFUL.

Now, this is far more powerful than just plain ALL POWERFUL, because just plain ALL-POWERFUL cannot possibly exist, thereby making ALL-POWERFUL fully impotent.

even a gnat is stronger, more powerful than a being with your definition of "omnipotence" ascribed to it. Because the gnat can actually exist.

Since omnipotence is attributed to the Judeo-Christian God, adding another attribute - semipotence - would take over the former attribute.

what verse attributes OMNIPOTENCE to God again? This is an acriku atheist attribute...not a biblical one. Cite the verse please.

God cannot exist contrary to His nature. This is in the Bible acriku. This makes the Power of God far stronger than your version of omnipotence which is unable to exist, hence uttterly weak.

A gnat is stronger, more powerful than a being with your definition of "omnipotence" ascribed to it. Because the gnat can actually exist.

So, are you saying your god is semipotent? Heck, I am semipotent. Nema is semipotent, even you are semipotent.

nope, you are.

the atheist definition of Omnipotence.

It is not the atheist definition of omnipotence, it is the definition, provide evidence that this is an atheist definition. The traditional definition of omnipotence is all-power.

but not the Biblical definition. There is no verse in the Bible that says God is "omnipotent'. The word is not even used. There are verses, however, that say God can do all things that are not contrary to Himself.

even a gnat is stronger, more powerful than a being with your definition of "omnipotence" ascribed to it. Because the gnat can actually exist.

In the bible, it says (as I have put in the very first post of this thread, which leads me to think you have not read it) Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. Also, it states that God is infinite, which omnipotence is drawn from. Does cannot mean not able to, or won't under such circumstances (as in upholding a good image of himself)?

infinite is not a logical fallacy. omnipotence to perform tasks contrary to God's nature is. The bible says God can do all things, and also says that God cannot do anything against His nature. So long as it is not contrary to God's nature, God can do it. This is the Biblical definition of God, as confirmed by any theologian or student of the Bible.

Perhaps infinity is illogical to begin with, a paradox in itself?

of course not. How is it?

Like describing a circle with corners. Impossible. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that "all-power" is an atheist definition of omnipotence, and rather it is the traditional definition held by all

(you being the exception).

again, we are talking about the Biblical definition of GOd, which places the definition of "anything not contrary to God's nature."

even a gnat is stronger, more powerful than a being with your definition of "omnipotence" ascribed to it. Because the gnat can actually exist.

Omnipotence can never have a meaning that can be applied to something, because it is illogical to begin with. Also, you dig yourself deeper by adding limits to the already impossible definition, which makes it impossible for another reason.

im not digging deaper into anything.

GOd is simply the greatest possible being. The Greatest Possible Being, for =which there is no being that could possibly be greater:

God has the power to perform any task that does not contradict himself.

Can you think of a being greater than this?

(note: if your being cannot actually exist, then I would like to remind you that a gnat can actually exist and would be stronger, more powerful, than any being you think up that cannot exist)

<snip remaining strawman, including the mountain fresh air containing nuclear fallout>

[emprworm]

Acriku- Today at 16:31:42 Replying to Re:The illogics of Judeo-Christian God.

I posted my gigantic argument at 16:31:51. i cant even read it in under 2 minutes.

Acriku is responding to it 51 seconds later. Proof that he didn't even read it. Pretty pathetic.

yes, that is PATHETIC acriku! Why should i even bother debating you if you dont even read what is being said? At least I read everything you said.

[Acriku]

Hehe this is too easy empr.

define define.

that was a pointless reply.

insomuch as you are about to use logic in order to say that illogic is greater than logic, you refute yourself.

I asked, to gather a better understanding of your statement, so I can reply against or for it. I am not going to accept or refuse on a half-understood statement. Asking to define superior is not using logic in order to say that illogic is greater than logic, on the contrary I think neither is greater. How did you come to that logic is better than illogic?

inferior as in it CANT EXIST!

What is the point of saying it is inferior in that it can't exist when it is already stated that one can exist and the other can't (logical and illogical)?

if you call "able to exist" a limit, then so be it. So, the Biblical Definition of God, then, "limits" the definition of God to something that can actually exist.

hmmmm....

Biblical Definition of God = can actually exist

Acriku's made-up definition of God = cannot possibly exist

yea, who's has the stronger definition, Acriku? lol!

even a gnat is stronger, more powerful than a being with your definition of "omnipotence" ascribed to it. Because the gnat can actually exist.

The limit is putting the bounds of logic to it. If god can't be illogical, then I guess there are something's impossible with god (contrary to Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.). Therefore, god is not omnipotent. Your definition is not the bible's definition, in fact - mine is. The bible does not say "For with God nothing shall be impossible, within the bounds of logic." You are morphing the bible into your own reasoning, and you probably will go to hell for doing that ;). Your definition is not stronger, it is just different. Different than the bible.

call it what you want, but there is no such attribute assigned to the Biblical God in the Bible.

There is no limit in God's power to perform any function that does not contradict God's nature. That is what the Bible describes.

God is LOGICALLY ALL-POWERFUL.

Now, this is far more powerful than just plain ALL POWERFUL, because just plain ALL-POWERFUL cannot possibly exist, thereby making ALL-POWERFUL fully impotent.

even a gnat is stronger, more powerful than a being with your definition of "omnipotence" ascribed to it. Because the gnat can actually exist.

Really? Where in the bible does it mention logic? It doesn't. You are putting your own reasoning into the bible, just as the KKK did and as the slaveowners did, and as the crusaders did. The plain "all-powerful" cannot exist, yes, and since that is what is described in the bible the Judeo-Christian God cannot exist! Hallelujah you have just disproved your god on your own!

what verse attributes OMNIPOTENCE to God again? This is an acriku atheist attribute...not a biblical one. Cite the verse please.

God cannot exist contrary to His nature. This is in the Bible acriku. This makes the Power of God far stronger than your version of omnipotence which is unable to exist, hence uttterly weak.

A gnat is stronger, more powerful than a being with your definition of "omnipotence" ascribed to it. Because the gnat can actually exist.

I gave you one verse, and am attempting to find the other verse that states that God is infinite (anybody help me out, saving me time?) So, where is the verse that says that God cannot exist contrary to His nature? You asked me, I ask you. I answered, I expect (although not entirely believe that you will) you to do so, as well.

nope, you are.

Nope, I am saying god is all-powerful, no limits, no restraints, you are saying he is semi-powerful by putting limits and restraints on his power.

but not the Biblical definition. There is no verse in the Bible that says God is "omnipotent'. The word is not even used. There are verses, however, that say God can do all things that are not contrary to Himself.

even a gnat is stronger, more powerful than a being with your definition of "omnipotence" ascribed to it. Because the gnat can actually exist.

The bible has no mention of the word "omnipotence," especially no definition of it but from the verse "Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible." we can easily deduce that god is omnipotent. If everything is possible with god, then he is omnipotent. We cannot, however, deduce your definition of omnipotence, because it has no mention of it.

of course not. How is it?

From drawing omnipotence from the idea of an infinite being. How is infinity logical? It isn't.

again, we are talking about the Biblical definition of GOd, which places the definition of "anything not contrary to God's nature."

even a gnat is stronger, more powerful than a being with your definition of "omnipotence" ascribed to it. Because the gnat can actually exist.

The bible says that god is infinite, and that nothing is impossible with god, it is easy and quite logical to deduce omnipotence. Using logic to deduce that has nothing to do with the illogic that comes with omnipotence, and thus infinity, and thus "nothing is impossible."

im not digging deaper into anything.

GOd is simply the greatest possible being. The Greatest Possible Being, for =which there is no being that could possibly be greater:

God has the power to perform any task that does not contradict himself.

Can you think of a being greater than this?

(note: if your being cannot actually exist, then I would like to remind you that a gnat can actually exist and would be stronger, more powerful, than any being you think up that cannot exist)

<snip remaining strawman, including the mountain fresh air containing nuclear fallout>

If god is infinite, there can never be anything greater than him, although some can be at the level of god, infinite. So your question is as useless as asking, "Is there anything that lasts longer than infinite?"

Funny that you don't reply to nearly half of my post :)

Your only attempt to refute my posts is repeating that omnipotence does not mean all-powerful. Hehe, this is so pitiful for you emprworm.

[Acriku]

Emprworm, I hit reply the moment you reply, and then read it under the reply post - it is easier that way for quoting and such duh :P Why do you think I posted my post a long time after you posted yours?

[emprworm]

You can take verses out of context, all you want Acriku, if they will suit your little "god paradoxes". But the definition of God in the Bible is far greater than 1 verse taken out of context. Other verses that say "it is impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews 6), begin to build a clear, more accurate definition of God that escapes a single verse referring to salvation (that you take out of context).

THe whole argument is reduced right here. DOnt complicate it, because it is reduced in a very simplified fashion as follows:

God, as defined in the Bible, is the greatest possible being. The Greatest Possible Being, for which there is no being that could possibly be greater.

God has the power to perform any task that does not contradict himself.

---->Can you think of a Being greater than this? <-----

(note: if your being cannot actually exist, then I would like to remind you that a gnat can actually exist and would be stronger, more powerful, than any being you think up that cannot exist)

[TMA_1]

instead of attacking god, why dont you read the bible first and study him before you jump to conclusions. Words of people cannot be trusted, go to the source instead of your own opinions or the opinions of others.

[Acriku]

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. Is not taken out of context - it was by Gabriel to Mary, during Christmas. So now, Gabriel is using the atheistic definition as well?

HEB 6:16 Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

This is what your verse is said, in context. It says it is impossible for god to lie because his word is his doing ("God cannot lie because everything He says comes to pass.")

And yet... God told Abraham to kill his only son, Isaac, but then said no right before Abraham did so. In this case, what he said did not come to pass. Also, Moses talks God out of exterminating the whole nation of Israel.

Exodus 32:7 And the LORD said to Moses, Go, go down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted [themselves]: 32:8 They have turned aside quickly from the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshiped it, and have sacrificed to it, and said, These are thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt. 32:9 And the LORD said to Moses, I have seen this people, and behold it [is] a stiff-necked people: 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

So, what God says, does not always come to pass. So, since this is the reason why God cannot lie, and has been refuted, God can lie. The gospel in the book is wrong, for God can lie. Why else can God not lie? If for no other reason, then God can lie. And when is it in his nature not to lie? It isn't against anything.

But all of this is rediculous, since you are the first of many christians I've talked to about god's omnipotence that has said it isn't all-power. Are all the other christians wrong, and you are right?

Ah, TMA, the old "you don't understand god or the bible" to refute all of this logic. Yeah ok tma, go back to your little corner.

[TMA_1]

little corner? lol I dont have one.

Dude, you are hiding a huge bubble of ignorance. You flower it up with nice website info you think is neat, but in reality have no idea of the doctern behind it. What if somebody said they dont agree with evolution and showed you a bunch of info against it. You then attacked them and showed them things that they didnt understand. You would realize they are ignorant. This is the same thing. You take info from other people and modify it for your own benefit. it is kinda sad, but I understand why you do it. Just try to work on being yourself and not another carbon copy of others.

[Gobalopper]

Acriku telling someone to kill someone and saying that the even will occur are two completely different things. But hey keep trying. ::)

[Acriku]

Ok TMA I put hours into research and thought of this, so don't try to belittle my post because you think I am ignorant. Somehow I highly doubt that by reading the bible I will suddenly be filled with such inspiration that I would be able to understand god and the logic behind it. In fact, I know some people who upon reading the bible became more affirm with their atheism and that christianity is a load of crock. So, until I do waste my time reading what some men "inspired" by the death of one Jesus have written, I use what I have. I use other websites as support, but not my entire argument. I put a lot of thought into this, and atleast empr has the respect to reply to the post itself, and not the poster.

Gob, I was pointing out that what God says it not always what happens. Besides, the Abraham story wasn't my only support, in the other verse God says that he will engulf Israel (read it for exact wording) but Moses talks him out of it.

[TMA_1]

I didnt suggest reading the bible to "convert" you, you are already too far gone dude.lol Its completely academic. If you refute something, you have to study that thing. Otherwise your whole debate is bias and subject to question. ask anybody with a shread of intelligence.

Also, thought with no substance is as worthless as a random thought while smoking weed.lol

[Acriku]

TMA please, reading the bible does not give me a higher understanding of the Judeo-Christian god, hell most christians probably have never read the bible. Does this mean I cannot understand the illogic behind the god with such attributes attached to it? Certainly not. I suggest everyone read Mein Kampf then (directed towards those who have not read it, but post about it), because then by reading it you will understand Hitler and won't post statements about it without substance ::)

[Gobalopper]

Again Acriku you are just stretching the words to try to fit around your view. Lets look at that verse:

"Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."

Where does God say he will destroy them?

[TMA_1]

reading the bible does not give me a higher understanding of the Judeo-Christian god

huh? the bible is the prime source of the jewish God. you are full of shit.lol If you cannot read the source of the debate, all you are reading is other people's opinions. that is so dumb that I cant even dignify that with words man.

Ask any person who studies their history on hitler and his acts, and they have read mein kampf. It is the book with his prime ideas and plans of his twisted future. Of course that wasent the source of the info. so that whole talk is bullshit once again.

Instead of arguing, read the bible. then you are not acting like a teen, but a man.

[Acriku]

Gob -

1. To be allowed or permitted to: May I take a swim? Yes, you may.

2. Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: It may rain this afternoon.

3. Used to express a desire or fervent wish: Long may he live!

4. Used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by that or so that: expressing ideas so that the average person may understand.

5. To be obliged; must. Used in statutes, deeds, and other legal documents. See Usage Note at can1.

There is no stretching of words. In context, God is most likely using definition number 4. Why would God use definition number 2? He is omniscient (then again, if he did say this, and Moses talked him out of it, he isn't omniscient). Man gob, you gave me another argument against omniscience of god without realizing it ;)

[emprworm]

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. Is not taken out of context - it was by Gabriel to Mary, during Christmas. So now, Gabriel is using the atheistic definition as well?

Quote:

HEB 6:16 Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

This is what your verse is said, in context. It says it is impossible for god to lie because his word is his doing ("God cannot lie because everything He says comes to pass.")

And yet... God told Abraham to kill his only son, Isaac, but then said no right before Abraham did so. In this case, what he said did not come to pass. Also, Moses talks God out of exterminating the whole nation of Israel.

Exodus 32:7 And the LORD said to Moses, Go, go down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted [themselves]: 32:8 They have turned aside quickly from the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshiped it, and have sacrificed to it, and said, These are thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt. 32:9 And the LORD said to Moses, I have seen this people, and behold it [is] a stiff-necked people: 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

---

arrrghh! This repuslive DOUBLE STANDARD IS enough to make me vomit.

Acriku, listen to me very carefully...don't hit that reply button until you read this with all your brain cells.

When people talk and have a discussion and write about things...LOGIC IS ASSUMED!!!

It is not necessary...repeat...NOT NECESSARY to preclude everything I say with "so long as it is logical".

What you are doing to the Bible is something you do to nothing else. You are revoltingly and fully irrationaly requiring every Bible passage to specifically qualify itself by saying "according to logic"

This is utter, total, complete.....

NONSENSE!

Logic is ASSUMED unless specifically stated otherwise.

You are requirements on the Bible is to assume ILLOGIC unless specifically stated LOGICAL, which is preposterous. You are making yourself look very irrational and foolish!!

"Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible." ASSUMES LOGIC. Like all other passages.

Just like you assumed logic when you applied your double standard to it and then came in here using logic to say it is a contradiction.

Luke 1:37 does not need to specifically qualify itself that it must be logical. BUt guess what? Just because God knew there would be stubborn "looking-for-excuses" atheists out there applying double standards on the Bible, He went ahead and put the qualifier in there anyways. Just not in the Book of Luke. THe qualifier that God does not contradict himself, thus being logical, is found in Hebrews.

You are blinded by your own atheism. You are, what I call, an evangelical atheist.

[TMA_1]

I am glad we have a great theologen that thinks he understands God, but spouts information like a marine ground pounder.lol ;)

[Acriku]

Hehe emprworm, by talking about a magical being in the sky that created us all in 6 days, logic is assumed? Blow that out your ear ;D You have no basis for this, and this is getting more funny than serious. Since when does the bible assume logic?