Creation vs. Atheism

@Jzyehoshua

"there are some things that God simply doesn't do because of His nature. For example, it is "impossible for God to lie." (Hebrews 6:18)"

1 Kings 22:23 King James Version (KJV)

23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Jeremiah 20:7

O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.

It's impossible for God to lie. But apparently it's not impossible for him to send lying spirits to people on his behalf, so that the people can mistake the spirits for God's word. So how do you know what you feel is him telling you the truth and not a lying spirit? Any particular method? Let me guess, it's faith.

I have to admit though, your God would make an excellent lawyer. His loophole for lying is way better than your loophole for reconciling the use of the word "fear". Now he can decieve anyone we wants to without having to lie directly. Pretty damn witty. Kudos to God.

@krasnaya

"It seems i own a somewhat inverted Midas-gift"

Love the subtle Greek references XD

@havfanridindis said (#461):
> Now he can decieve anyone we wants to without having to lie directly.

But even does lie directly too: didn't he tell Abraham to sacrifice his son, only to renounce his own wish later? Either he later changed his mind and really wanted the guy sacrificed - yes, i can see what a loving god that must be - or he knew pretty well he wasn't wanting the sacrifice in first place and simply lied Abraham to his face.

I leave the explanation if god is a liar or an asshole to the xtians.

By the way, your example with the deck of cards is the same as mine with the water molecules. Yours is several orders of magnitude removed but easier to picture. Having one of any equally unlikely composition is not unlikely, only repeating it is. But this would need (at least) two occurrences, not one. As i said, you can't base statistical deliberations on a sample of one.

So as long as we don't know a statistically relevant number of universes we don't know if ours is a common case or the exception. And even if it is the exception we would still would not be in a position to argue because in a not-life-supporting universe we couldn't contemplate why we are not here (the anthropocentric argument).

krasnaya

@krasnaya

I figured that if I had said that God lied he would probably reply something like "He didn't lie himself, he sent spirits, so no contradiction there", so I saved some time.

"But even does lie directly too: didn't he tell Abraham to sacrifice his son, only to renounce his own wish later? Either he later changed his mind and really wanted the guy sacrificed - yes, i can see what a loving god that must be - or he knew pretty well he wasn't wanting the sacrifice in first place and simply lied Abraham to his face.

I leave the explanation if god is a liar or an asshole to the xtians."

Well he isn't supposed to be able to change his mind either

Numbers 23:19

19 God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

Out of the two contradictions, lying or changing his mind, my best guess is that he changed his mind. He did that quite a lot actually if you compare the laws and teachings of the old and new testaments. In the old testament he was really pissed at everybody, then he became all forgiving and merciful. You have to add divine mood swings up there along with his other divine attributes and then you're good to go.

"Yours is several orders of magnitude removed but easier to picture."

Yeah, it's what I use when one doesn't understand the logic. Gotta break it down in simple terms and I found this example to be quite intuitive and easy to grasp.

@havfanridindis said (#464):
> then he became all forgiving and merciful

Well, that was his son, in the New Testament, no? But then, that is him again because they are one, yes? So he told himself something whenever he spoke to Jesus, hm??

Monotheism can be sooo complicated, thank god i am an atheist. ;-)

Here is a real statistical argument:

In a way i am envious for my offspring who will sit here two-thousand years from now and laugh their asses off when they try to make sense of that superstition. You know, 2000 years ago, Teutates was an important deity here in central Europe: celtic father of gods - quite similar to Zeus. But celts are rare today and therefore Teutates is no longer a god anymore, he is more like a certain form of weaving technique, stored away in the evidence vault of history, department for not longer needed deities. Together with Ra, Osiris, Poseidon, Zeus, Zoroaster, Asklepios, the Great Turtle and what have you. But this god, who is widely believed in today - that one is of course the real one. Yes, sure. Of course. How could i ever doubt that?

krasnaya

(PS, to xtians: if you find dark sarcasm in my words - keep it. @havfanridindis will probably understand me when i say i am proud to be a dog.)

You failed to answer the question. Where and what gave you the right to change the definition of omnipotence form "UNLIMITED power able to do ANYTHING" to "all KNOWN power"

You have given the word a different definition and you think your special definition applies only when i point out that the mere concept of omnipotence has many obvious paradoxical problems. Here is part of your answer as to how you got your definitions:

"God can be all-knowing of all that exists in the sense the Bible speaks of, and capable of
knowing parts of the future as clearly evident from prophecy, without necessarily always
having known what would occur........."

Where in this sentence (or the entire paragraph) did you tell me where you got your definition from? You have dodged the question. The question is simple, the real meaning of omnipotence in short is UNLIMTTED POWER but you have changed it to "all power THAT EXISTS". So for the second time, and i fear not the last i will ask you again, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT DEFINiTION FROM? I ask because the reader is left with no choice but to think you have redefined the word to escape the problems that it causes, you have twisted the word and that is dishonest which is as plain as day for an unbiased reader to see .

Of course i may very well be wrong, but you have yet to tell me how i am wrong by telling me what person or part of the bible gave the very specific meaning. Giving me more assertions such as ""God can be all-knowing of all that exists in the sense the Bible speaks of, and capable of knowing parts of the future as clearly evident from prophecy, without necessarily always having known what would occur" DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. What it does is just highlight that you don't have no answer.

The bible verses you give just point out the oxford dictionary definition does not work. So either the verses have been falsified (obviously the case) or the word has a different meaning in this book of yours the it does in the dictionary (clearly not, the word means the same in the bible as it does throughout all litterature unless you can point out where it gives a clear redefinition). If you can show me that it actually do have a different meaning and you have not just changed it to suit you the i will concede, because i am honest and will follow the evidence wherever it goes, even if it goes against everything i thought i knew.

For people who think i am quote mining here is the full "answer" to my question. Since when did omnipotence change its meaning from "unlimited power" to "all power that exists"?:

Here is the attempt to answer: (caps are of my doing)

"God can be all-knowing of all that exists IN THE SENSE THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF, and capable of knowing parts of the future as CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM PROPHECY, without necessarily always having known what would occur. The Bible speaks of God being surprised and disappointed by the actions of human beings which would not make sense if God had inherent knowledge of the future."

So the fiRst part "god can be all Knowing IN THE SENSE THAT THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF" is the first and biggest issue. Not only have you not answered the question but you have done it again but worse, "in the sense that the bible speaks of", how do you know bible is speaking of it in any other sense that what he word actually means? (personal and much needed ad hoc interpretation is my best guess).

You are doing nothing but asserting that the bible is using the word in a different "sense" than any other then what the word actually means, but you are not telling me why you are doing that or how you can do that. Lets be honest here though, i know WHY you are redefining it but i want to know if you is have a legitimate reason for doing so. I dont think so, the reason is you have to. If you didnt then the attributes that define your god are falsified in a book that you say is PERFECT. So is your PERFECT book wrong?

You then go on to quote some chapters/verses that show the problems with god being omniscient and omnipotent, but that goes against you. All you have done there is point out verses that show god cant be omnipotent/omniscient. Those verses dont show you a redefinition of the words they just show you that the actual verses make no sense with the actual definitions that have not been made up to suit the story.

You have just put your foot in it and pointed out veresethat make you ask "why and how would this need to happen if god was either omni-this/omni-that." It doesn't give a different definition for the word it just shows that you HAVE HAD TO REDEFINE THE WORDS TO MAKE THE VERSES MAKE ANY SENSE WITH AN OMNI-x,y,z GOD.

So we have not got an answer to how you got to know these special definitions, what we got was more examples of why you have had to change the definitions .YOU DONT GET TO CHANGE THE MEANINGS OF WORDS WHEN YOU REALISE THE STORY WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE IF THEY REMAINED THE SAME. You need to point out where it says omnipotence means "all KNOWN power" not point out that the entire concept falls apart unless you change the story.

OH BUT IT GETS WORSE!

You follow up by really trying hard to chnage this topic and avoid answering by this:

"another example, what about time travel? Just because we imagine that it can exist, doesn't mean it does. If so, it's impossible for God to have a power that doesn't exist, just because we think it should. In Matthew 13:27-28, the angels directly ask Jesus why there is evil among His creation if He made everything good, and are bluntly told that it's because an enemy (Satan) was responsible. God's absolute power thus did not prevent Satan's deception in causing mankind's fall, and it can be assumed that time travel does not exist Biblically or God could have just gone back in time and altered what happened."

Wow, First thing that springs to mind is that i thought god transcended time and space? Second thing is you have said it again! "its impossible for god to have power that doesnt exist" so YET AGAIN you have redefined the word! So get around to telling me how and why you have the special rights to do that.

You repeatedly do a great job at pointing out that the book would make no sense without a the redenition of these words. The things you have shown do not redefine the words but what they do very well is falsify the bible, or at least falsify an omnipotent, omniscient god.

EITHER YOU HAD TO CHANGE THE STORY/CHAPER/VERSE OR YOUR BOOK OR CHANGE THE MEANING OR THE WORDS AND THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE DONE IT. You would rather change question the english language the a goat herders tory,. That is scary.

YOU HAVE DONE A POOR JOB AT GIVING AN ACTUAL LEGITIMATE, SOLID REASON BASED ON FACTS, THAT WHEN WORDS ARE USED IN THE BIBLE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGSFROM WHEN THEY ARE USED EVERYWHERE ELSE.

I dont need more examples, your verses just show that the real meanings dont work but THAT FALSIFIES THE VERSE IT DOESN'T REDEFINE THE WORDS.

P.S
After you try and answer this or if you be honest and admit you have your own meaning in order for to suit your book then we can move on to the most obvious, tired atheist question of why does evil eixst etc. Until then we need to clear this up and get an answer before jumping to the next. So please explain why you can change the dictionary?

With respect, and slight irritation due to you avoiding to answer the question i wish you well.

God luck, and keep kickin some chess arse ;-)
James

@krasnaya "will probably understand me when i say i am proud to be a dog.)"
LOL

@krasnaya

" But this god, who is widely believed in today - that one is of course the real one. Yes, sure. Of course. How could i ever doubt that?"

But of course he's the real one, it is so obvious. It says it right here on my holy book, are you blind?

Plus, all the earlier gods before we invented the monotheistic system had limited capabilities. Like one would be the God of sun, or wind or thunder etc... Those were probably the Beta versions and eventually people settled on fewer Gods but with more powers. You can see how religion evolved through the ages. First we worshipped objects like trees, the sun, the moon, then worshipped magical people in the clouds, then worshipped fewer magical people and they were further up and then worshipped people who claimed to have dscended or speak for those magical cloud people etc. It's like a giant prank on humanity that lasts for millennia.

I imagine that if all the Gods you mentioned were in the "God of War" video game franchise, Teutates and the others would be like the minions you have to kill first and then Yahweh appears as the final boss with his omnipotence. He's like the final stop at the evolution of human arrogance. (or at least I don't expect any crazier major religions to emerge in the near future)

@havfanridindis said (#468):
> First we worshipped objects like trees, the sun

Yes, but actually i can *see* the sun. That helps the credibility a lot.

I see, my friend (if i may take the liberty to call you that), that you are equally capable of the tone. More power to Antisthenes!

@nuffsed81 said (#466):
> "God can be all-knowing of all that exists IN THE SENSE THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF,

I know you were quoting. I just want to add: in the bible bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13-19 ) and whales are fish (Jonah 1:17 comp. to Matthew 12:39-41). I suppose the all-knowing is even more limited in respect to biology.

krasnaya

Well, it seems to be clear in this thread that creationism and christianity in general has been completely and utterly destroyed. Now i propose a new debate: Minecraft Vs ROBLOX!