• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can there be an all mighty god?

lefty louie said:
Yet a simple yes or no will get to the bottom of this. I profess there is no such thing as omnipotent.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I submit God cannot do everything. Rather, God can do everything that can be done.
I submit God does not know everything. Rather, God knows everything that can be known. (and that God deems worth knowing)

(that's my story and I'm sticking to it !)
 
You assumption is that the "god" you prescribe within the context of your question must fit that prescription which then conveniently fulfills your similarly simplistic revelation of a conclusion.

But consider that an entity than is believed by some to have been the creator of time, matter and life may potentially be a bit too complex for such a prescription.

I do not intend this in anyway to negate your opinion that such an entity can not be omnipotent, only suggest the question is not terribly relevant.

Do you think that people (Catholics/Christians like me) who have come to believe all of the rest of what Christianity requires us to believe that this question is an actual challenge to faith?

But the answer to this question is self-evident in any case, God has created something so heavy he can not lift it. As was once postulated by a Catholic nun in her response to this question referring to atheists she said, "the human heart is sometimes far to heavy to be lifted by God".

So perhaps you can accept that as a victory.
 
lefty louie said:
Well just for argument sake, we can all agree that no god can be the all mighty (Do everything).
Click to expand...

Then he wouldn't be God would he?
The real question is does it make sense for a logical perfect being to do.
 
Last edited:
lefty louie said:
Well then, can god, any god, create an object so big that even he cannot lift it? It's a simple yes or no.
Click to expand...

The question is why would he? What is the point?
God is a logical being.

The second point that puts this in the grave is that an omnipotent God is omnipotent.
Can God Create A Rock So Heavy That He Cannot Lift It?

Your asking a being to do something that is a logical fallacy.
The creator is always stronger than the created. Since there is no one higher in the food chain than God.

There you have it.
 
ludin said:
Then he wouldn't be God would he?
The real question is does it make sense for a logical perfect being to do.
Click to expand...
Exactly then there is no true GOD.

Why does it have to be logical to do/try, your making or trying to make an excuse, find away around it.

ludin said:
The question is why would he? What is the point?
God is a logical being.

The second point that puts this in the grave is that an omnipotent God is omnipotent.
Can God Create A Rock So Heavy That He Cannot Lift It?

Your asking a being to do something that is a logical fallacy.
The creator is always stronger than the created. Since there is no one higher in the food chain than God.

There you have it.
Click to expand...

No, the question is not why would he, the question is, can he. He can't so therefore in a traditional sense there is no GOD. You just have a hard time living with that fact.
 
lefty louie said:
Exactly then there is no true GOD.

Why does it have to be logical to do/try, your making or trying to make an excuse, find away around it.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said.
Because you are acting like an all power omnipotent God doesn't know how to use his power.
You also neglect that God has a nature and does not do anything out side of that nature.

No, the question is not why would he, the question is, can he. He can't so therefore in a traditional sense there is no GOD. You just have a hard time living with that fact.
Click to expand...

He has no reason to. You logical fallacy as explained in the link is still a logical fallacy.
It isn't a fact. It is your poor and frankly immature way of trying to disprove something.

Look up contrary to the premise fallacy and that pretty much invalidates your argument right there.

At least the God of the Bible is not bound to his creation.
 
All limitations on God are limitations of the mind of man to conceive of God.
All paradoxes that result from the human mind's attempt to conceive of God are products of the limitations of the human mind.
All conceptions of God are just that -- conceptions.
In God lies the Great Mystery of All Being, and all the seeming paradoxes and contradictions encountered by the human mind in its attempt to conceive of God must be subsumed under the Great Mystery.
In short, we literally don't know what we're talking about when we talk of God. Full stop.
 
Yes.

No proof is needed. My faith demands it.

And that's the point of faith.
 
Johnson said:
That's not something anyone can possibly know for sure. And just by simple rules of logic, if you aren't 100% certain that it isn't possible, you have to accept that it is possible.
Click to expand...

Not knowing if something is impossible doesn't mean it is possible, only that it could be possible
 
Quag said:
Not knowing if something is impossible doesn't mean it is possible, only that it could be possible
Click to expand...
The possibly possible is possible. Modal logic.
 
Quag said:
Not knowing if something is impossible doesn't mean it is possible, only that it could be possible
Click to expand...

Oh joy, we're going to have this one again are we?
 
William Rea said:
Oh joy, we're going to have this one again are we?
Click to expand...

Yup we cant have a logical conversation if people cant do basic logic. So if we have to start with the basics we have to start with the basics.
 
Angel said:
"Could be" means possible. Actual English.
Click to expand...

I originally stated that it is possible that it is possible, that that confused Frank. However as it is also possible that it is impossible you cannot claim that it is possible only that it could be possible or if you prefer it is possible that it is possible.

Actual English
 
Quag said:
I originally stated that it is possible that it is possible, that that confused Frank. However as it is also possible that it is impossible you cannot claim that it is possible only that it could be possible or if you prefer it is possible that it is possible.

Actual English
Click to expand...
Who is Frank and what do you mean by "originally posted"? This is your first post to this thread:
Quag said:
Not knowing if something is impossible doesn't mean it is possible, only that it could be possible
Click to expand...
I don't see anything in this post that corresponds with what you're saying in #41 (quoted above).

And again, both "x could be possible" and "it is possible that x is possible" equate to "x is possible."

Also, in your first post you seem to conflate epistemic possibility and ontological possibility. Please clarify this. I don't want us to start talking about different things again.
 
Angel said:
Who is Frank and what do you mean by "originally posted"? This is your first post to this thread:

I don't see anything in this post that corresponds with what you're saying in #41 (quoted above).

And again, both "x could be possible" and "it is possible that x is possible" equate to "x is possible."

Also, in your first post you seem to conflate epistemic possibility and ontological possibility. Please clarify this. I don't want us to start talking about different things again.
Click to expand...

Very simply if something is impossible it is impossible and not knowing that it is impossible doesn't make it possible the best you can say is that it could be possible
Frank is the poster in another thread who originally stated that if something is not known to be impossible it is possible. I pointed out that at best he could only claim that it is possible that it is possible and he had a meltdown.


A1 able to be done or achieved, or able to exist:
Click to expand...
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/possible
For the case of this thread is an all powerful God able to exist? That is unknown thus you cannot claim it is possible.
 
So by expunging faith from the USSR, Stalin ended evil?

How about Pol Pot? Fidel Castro? Kim Jun-un?
 
SirGareth said:
So by expunging faith from the USSR, Stalin ended evil?

How about Pol Pot? Fidel Castro? Kim Jun-un?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
Quag said:
Very simply if something is impossible it is impossible and not knowing that it is impossible doesn't make it possible the best you can say is that it could be possible

...


For the case of this thread is an all powerful God able to exist? That is unknown thus you cannot claim it is possible.
Click to expand...
So it is clear from this post that you are not distinguishing (whereas you should be distinguishing) between epistemic possibility and ontic possibility.
And again, your pleonasms boil down to "x is possible." There's no getting around that, grammatically or logically.
 
Angel said:
So it is clear from this post that you are not distinguishing (whereas you should be distinguishing) between epistemic possibility and ontic possibility.
And again, your pleonasms boil down to "x is possible." There's no getting around that, grammatically or logically.
Click to expand...

Grammatically and logically there is no way to claim something is possible just because you dont know it is impossible.
The best you can say is that it COULD be possible, without adding the word could (or some other similar caveat) the phrase is not accurate.
 
lefty louie said:
I'm not religious in the least, I have more then enough reason to be anti religious, rape, war, slavery the list goes on and on, but I don't hold it against anyone for being religious. If that's what works for you then God bless.

My real question here is, can a god (all religions are based on a god, gods, god like figure), be all mighty?

A say not.
Click to expand...

Too vague. Rape, war, slavery?
 
worksforpigs said:
Too vague. Rape, war, slavery?
Click to expand...

I think he means that he is anti-religious because those things exist in this world... He doesn't believe that a "good" God would allow those things to exist... That's my guess on his position anyway...
 
worksforpigs said:
Too vague. Rape, war, slavery?
Click to expand...

gfm7175 said:
I think he means that he is anti-religious because those things exist in this world... He doesn't believe that a "good" God would allow those things to exist... That's my guess on his position anyway...
Click to expand...

It's not uncommon for "religious" persons to rape young boys and girls, enslave other races, and have waged war over time. If you need specific's I can supply them, but that (as noted) wasn't my real question. If you google religion and rape, war, or slavery I'm sure you'll turn up enough to keep you busy. Thanks to GMF7175 for trying to explain my position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom