How to choose between creation and evolution.

[SelfSim]

I know, reality is embarassing for your beliefs.

Some people create their own realities though .. (y'know: in order to avoid embarassment in front of those who, for some strange reason, don't share in their beliefs ..)

 

[AV1611VET]

Rather than addressing the paradox this is a cop out.
If God somehow decided not to be omnipotent then he/she would not be able to create the stone in the first place.

C'mon, sjastro ... you're smarter than that.

Act 1: God creates a stone.
Act 2: God sets His omnipotence aside.
Act 3: Paradox solved.

In fact, He doesn't even have to create the stone; all He has to do is set His omnipotence aside, and a four-year old can lift a stone (or toy or whatever), whereas God can't.

Easy peasy.

 

[SelfSim]

C'mon, sjastro ... you're smarter than that.

.. uh oh! Do we really have to go down that route in order to 'win'?

Act 1: God creates a stone.
Act 2: God sets His omnipotence aside.
Act 3: Paradox solved.

So this subjugates God to having to obey a pre-existing (set) time sequence, then? (The 'Arrow of time' is assumed in what you say there).

In fact, He doesn't even have to create the stone; all He has to do is set His omnipotence aside, and a four-year old can lift a stone (or toy or whatever), whereas God can't.

So if he sets aside omnipotence then he's less physically capable than a four year old human? How so?

 

[sjastro]

C'mon, sjastro ... you're smarter than that.

Act 1: God creates a stone.
Act 2: God sets His omnipotence aside.
Act 3: Paradox solved.

In fact, He doesn't even have to create the stone; all He has to do is set His omnipotence aside, and a four-year old can lift a stone (or toy or whatever), whereas God can't.

Easy peasy.

This is incoherent nonsense.
How is God's decision to set his/her omnipotence aside manifested after the stone is created?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think omnipotence operates on a much more fundamental level such as the dealing with the question of free will.
If God is omnipotent then the actions of Judas would have been known even before Judas was born.
As a result any individual created by God cannot exercise free will.

That doesn't follow if free will is subjective - which seems to me the only coherent formulation of it.

 

[SelfSim]

This is incoherent nonsense.
How is God's decision to set his/her omnipotence aside manifested after the stone is created?

A 'Smote' strikes again!? (Just love that word .. )

 

[SelfSim]

That doesn't follow if free will is subjective - which seems to me the only coherent formulation of it.

I think 'coherency' and 'free will' are related though(?)

 

[sjastro]

That doesn't follow if free will is subjective - which seems to me the only coherent formulation of it.

In the context of the Bible, the actions of Judas was a fulfilled prophecy.
The literal interpretation of the Bible would suggest Judas was fated and his actions known before his time on Earth could only be the result of God being omnipotent.

 

[AV1611VET]

.. uh oh! Do we really have to go down that route in order to 'win'?
So this subjugates God to having to obey a pre-existing (set) time sequence, then? (The 'Arrow of time' is assumed in what you say there).

So if he sets aside omnipotence then he's less physically capable than a four year old human? How so?

Have a good day!

 

[Kylie]

God said don't eat bats. People ate bats. Now we have to wear masks.

No, people wrote down that God said not to eat bats.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, people wrote down that God said not to eat bats.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm sorry, I don't understand how they can be your 'thoughts, morals and ethics' in that sentence?
If they are subject to your mind, then surely that then makes them yours (and so you own them) and so the process is then reversible .. but then you somehow disown them ie: 'not vice versa'?
Or was that perhaps just a mistake in what you typed?

They are subject to my rationalizations.

 

[Kylie]

A distinction without a difference.

There's a whopping big difference between the two.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There's a whopping big difference between the two.

God speaks to mankind through those he has chosen to speak.

 

[AV1611VET]

God speaks to mankind through those he has chosen to speak.

Right!

Habakkuk 2:1 I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved.
2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.

Revelation 1:11a Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia;

 

[Kylie]

God speaks to mankind through those he has chosen to speak.

We are told that God does this. That doesn't mean he does.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We are told that God does this. That doesn't mean he does.

If you don't believe it he is likely not talking to you. God has to give you 'ears' to hear him.

 

[SelfSim]

They are subject to my rationalizations.

That doesn't make sense.
You said:

My point is that my ethics and morals, as well as all my thoughts, are subject to my mind, not vice versa.

So, these 'ethics, morals and thoughts' of yours, (see emboldened 'my' above), are again subject to your own rationalisations, and they are stated, by yourself, as being your rationalisations to begin with .. and yet, you are unable to reverse the process by which you came up with them in the first place, (or even review them), and, as well, you exhibit the audacity to impersonate an 'OldWiseGuy' (meaning that rethinking or re-rationalising perceptions, is the basis of wisdom y'know).

Then you come up with the response (albeit, to another point) of:

A distinction without a difference.

Goodness gracious! Have you already abandoned all semblances of rationalisation about your sense of 'self', so how could you possibly make any claims about distinctions?!
Talk about a 'slippery slope' fallacious basis of argumentation!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That doesn't make sense.
You said:
So, these 'ethics, morals and thoughts' of yours, (see emboldened 'my' above), are again subject to your own rationalisations, and they are stated, by yourself, as being your rationalisations to begin with .. and yet, you are unable to reverse the process by which you came up with them in the first place, (or even review them), and, as well, you exhibit the audacity to impersonate an 'OldWiseGuy' (meaning that rethinking or re-rationalising perceptions, is the basis of wisdom y'know).

Then you come up with the response (albeit, to another point) of:Goodness gracious! Have you already abandoned all semblances of rationalisation about your sense of 'self', so how could you possibly make any claims about distinctions?!
Talk about a 'slippery slope' fallacious basis of argumentation!

I'm sorry that you are unable to understand what I said.

 

[SelfSim]

If you don't believe it he is likely not talking to you. God has to give you 'ears' to hear him.

.. and the instant you hear 'Him' they end up as being your perceptions .. ie: you own 'em from thereon!