Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If God is defined as being omnipotent, but we find something God can not do. If we do not want to change the definition of God, then what can be done?
Of course, we can review the nature of that thing which God can not do. If the thing violates the definition, then it is not the fault of God, Who is defined. But is the fault of that thing, which is "illegally" requested.
God(1) is omnipotent -- A definition. (1)
God(2) can not lie -- This is another definition. (2)
If god lied, then it violates the definition 2. Then this god is not God(2) any more.
But this does not violate the definition 1. So God(1) is still omnipotent.
In another case:
God is (defined as) omnipotent AND does not lie.
(God) lied. -- a discovery
So, this god is not the one defined, but is someone not defined. Otherwise, your discovery violates the definition. Also, the discovery of lying has nothing to do with the omnipotence in the definition.
As a result, "God can not lie, so God is not omnipotent" is an illegal statement.
--------
I did not criticize you wrongly. This IS lesson 1 in logic 101.
Which means, basically, that god cannot be both omnipotent and completely benevolent at the same time, because an omnipotent god is capable of evil, while a completely benevolent god is not.
Then again, who knows, people do not form reliable permanent memories until age 4, so maybe we had past lives or were in some kind of state and forgot the experience.
Definition of omnipotent: can do anything. If you can't do something, then you aren't omnipotent, it is as simple as that. Therefore, if god cannot lie, then god isn't omnipotent, because there is something that god is incapable of doing, whereas an omnipotent being finds nothing impossible.
Then, very simple, I don't want that god.
My God is omnipotent AND not (capable of being) evil.
Are you in college?
Remember to take Logic 101. You will find what is wrong in your reasoning.
This isn't a question meant for the non-believer. We can poke holes in the thought process all day long. But for someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, this can be more thought provoking.
AV and most will dismiss it without ever really giving the thought any merit. However, AV is an honest man and he will not shy away from saying that the only real answer is Faith.
The Bible has no defense when authorship is questioned. It can only use itself as justification.
Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him (Proverbs 30:5).
And if the word was not of God?... Well then the answer is simple. "I have Faith that it is." Belief without proof or evidence. The Blind leading the Blind.
You're all in the same boat as us - grasping at straws and waiting for death to reveal the truth.
If God is defined as being omnipotent, but we find something God can not do. If we do not want to change the definition of God, then what can be done?
Of course, we can review the nature of that thing which God can not do. If the thing violates the definition, then it is not the fault of God, Who is defined. But is the fault of that thing, which is "illegally" requested.
God(1) is omnipotent -- A definition. (1)
God(2) can not lie -- This is another definition. (2)
If god lied, then it violates the definition 2. Then this god is not God(2) any more.
But this does not violate the definition 1. So God(1) is still omnipotent.
In another case:
God is (defined as) omnipotent AND does not lie.
(God) lied. -- a discovery
So, this god is not the one defined, but is someone not defined. Otherwise, your discovery violates the definition. Also, the discovery of lying has nothing to do with the omnipotence in the definition.
As a result, "God can not lie, so God is not omnipotent" is an illegal statement.
--------
I did not criticize you wrongly. This IS lesson 1 in logic 101.
If God is defined as being omnipotent, but we find something God can not do. If we do not want to change the definition of God, then what can be done?
Of course, we can review the nature of that thing which God can not do. If the thing violates the definition, then it is not the fault of God, Who is defined. But is the fault of that thing, which is "illegally" requested.
God(1) is omnipotent -- A definition. (1)
God(2) can not lie -- This is another definition. (2)
If god lied, then it violates the definition 2. Then this god is not God(2) any more.
But this does not violate the definition 1. So God(1) is still omnipotent.
In another case:
God is (defined as) omnipotent AND does not lie.
(God) lied. -- a discovery
So, this god is not the one defined, but is someone not defined. Otherwise, your discovery violates the definition. Also, the discovery of lying has nothing to do with the omnipotence in the definition.
As a result, "God can not lie, so God is not omnipotent" is an illegal statement.
--------
I did not criticize you wrongly. This IS lesson 1 in logic 101.
Your definition 2 violates definition 1.
God doesn't have to DO anything (lie or speak truth). Your DEFINITIONS themselves are illogical.
For the sake of argument I'm going to say God doesn't lie. He left the evidence of creation all around us. My point in starting this thread wasn't about people committing atrocities in the bibles name or whether they were justified.
My point was that if the devil corrupted your bible how would you know? Maybe God doesn't agree with the worship of this book.
Because that would mean that Satan would of known God's Secret Plan all along (the Saving of Mankind by Jesus), and the coming of Jesus.
All books have clues hidden to the secret plan of God, if Satan knew that, then I don't think writing the Bible would make any sense because the Plan wouldn't be secret.
Do you see what I mean?
Since you wanted a response, I'll give you one:
If Satan wrote the Bible, then nothing in the Bible was God's plan. If Satan wrote the Bible, the saving of mankind by Jesus was Satan's fiction.
If Satan wrote the Bible, we wouldn't know what God's plan is, or even if he had one.
You see why your argument doesn't work?
No lol, your logic doesn't make sense to me.
Satan doesn't know the thoughts of man. When they wrote exactly what God told them to, he had no way to know what was written.
I don't think you get the point of this thread. If Satan wrote the Bible, as the OP hypothetically states....GOD NEVER SPOKE TO THE AUTHORS of the Bible. Satan did, making the Bible entirely his work of deception.
The only things you know about God and Satan are what you have made up, you don't know who's who,If you had a little knowledge about the qualities of God and Satan you could see that it isn't possible for satan to even begin writing what is in the Bible.
The only things you know about God and Satan are what you have made up, you don't know who's who,
how can you tell that God is not the bad one? look at all of the death and destruction done in the name of God in the OT, what did Satan do that was so bad? it was God who tempted Eve in the garden with the serpent, [please don't say God didn't because he allowed the serpent to be there so he must have wanted it to happen] either that or the story was just made up by someone who didn't think too hard about what they were writing.
Remember that an omnipotent being has no obligation to do the evil it is capable of. An omnipotent being can choose not to do anything evil.
Your definition 2 violates definition 1.
God doesn't have to DO anything (lie or speak truth). Your DEFINITIONS themselves are illogical.
For example:
Definition 1: I was born in 1950
Definition 2: I was born in 1970
Can anybody fill both definitions?
And, you should talk to me with a little respect. It is I who am teaching you. Not the other way around. If you don't like it, we can simply quit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?