• 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?

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...

I've seen that position before and it's not much of one. It hinges on the worship of human understanding as the ultimate in the universe.
 
lefty louie said:
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.
Click to expand...

So basically free will which results in corruption among some people is proof of no God?

You're actually complaining that people have free will to make choices good or bad and aren't mind-stripped automatons.
 
worksforpigs said:
So basically free will which results in corruption among some people is proof of no God?

You're actually complaining that people have free will to make choices good or bad and aren't mind-stripped automatons.
Click to expand...

No, your speaking to my minor points. Focus on the simple fact that nothing can do everything. No rock could be too big, so that's one thing that can't be done. Could a foot be made that could not fit a shoe? Everything can't be done. People want to confuse things by saying "why would a god want to do something like this" etc. that's not the point, if there is a god, he/she/it has a weakness.
 
worksforpigs said:
I've seen that position before and it's not much of one. It hinges on the worship of human understanding as the ultimate in the universe.
Click to expand...

That's why I figured that's what he was saying, and I do agree with you that there is another level of understanding above our "human" understanding.
 
Quag said:
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
Click to expand...
Angel said:
The possibly possible is possible...
Click to expand...
Quag said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just to keep us on track, I remind us (above) of the exchanges that brought us to this point.

First of all, Johnson is correct. If something is unknown, and does not involve a (known) logical contradiction, then it is possible.

Second, your phrasing, "it only could be possible," does not correct Johnson. You are stating the same thing as Johnson. What "could be possible" is possible.

Third, I was making the second point with my post that what is possibly possible is possible. Your "could be" is just a way of saying "possibly."

Fourth, Johnson appears to be talking about epistemic possibility (note his use of the word "know"). Your reply to Johnson appears to be about epistemic possibility as well (note your use of the word "knowing"). In your replies to me, this point is not clear. But let's assume you're talking about epistemic possibility throughout.

Your point throughout seems to be that ignorance of impossibility does not support knowledge of possibility. Is that correct?

But impossibility is just the negation of possibility. Correct?

So if we are unable to negate a possibility, doesn't the possibility survive?
 
lefty louie said:
No, your speaking to my minor points. Focus on the simple fact that nothing can do everything. No rock could be too big, so that's one thing that can't be done. Could a foot be made that could not fit a shoe? Everything can't be done. People want to confuse things by saying "why would a god want to do something like this" etc. that's not the point, if there is a god, he/she/it has a weakness.
Click to expand...



You're arguing semantics. An immovable object cannot exist in the same reality as an irresistible force, because by definition one precludes the other. Pragmatically this sort of thing is merely word-play and has no real meaning.
 
Goshin said:
You're arguing semantics. An immovable object cannot exist in the same reality as an irresistible force, because by definition one precludes the other. Pragmatically this sort of thing is merely word-play and has no real meaning.
Click to expand...

The laws of the world are all word play. Call it what you want, some things cannot be done, there is no "All mighty" god.
 
lefty louie said:
The laws of the world are all word play. Call it what you want, some things cannot be done, there is no "All mighty" god.
Click to expand...



No, they aren't. We explain them with words (and math) but they exist independent of our words.


You don't need a word for gravity to fall off a cliff.
 
lefty louie said:
I have more then enough reason to be anti religious, rape, war, slavery the list goes on and on...
Click to expand...

Let's let you be God for the time being.

Please tell me how you create man with free will and at the same time not allow him to sin (rape, war, slavery) if he wants? How do you do that?
 
lefty louie said:
The laws of the world are all word play. Call it what you want, some things cannot be done, there is no "All mighty" god.
Click to expand...

The thing is, you're talking about negatives...in that sense there are lots of things God cannot do...because He is God Almighty...He cannot lie, He cannot do anything unjust, He cannot do anything unmerciful, He can do no wrong...but that doesn't mean He is not Almighty...
 
There can be, but there is not.
 
And that's the beautiful thing about God Almighty...He is as real to a person as the person allows Him to be...He does not force Himself on anyone...but yet, He is not far off from each one of us...if only we seek Him...

"The God who made the world and all the things in it, being, as he is, Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade temples; nor is he served by human hands as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all people life and breath and all things. And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell, so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us." Acts 17:24-27
 
Angel said:
Do you believe there's a god that can't do that?
Click to expand...

Yes. I believe there is a god, but I do not believe he is all mighty or all powerful, as described in the Bible.
 
Angel said:
Just to keep us on track, I remind us (above) of the exchanges that brought us to this point.

First of all, Johnson is correct. If something is unknown, and does not involve a (known) logical contradiction, then it is possible.
Click to expand...
No he isn't, if the possibility/impossibility is unknown you cannot claim it is possible at best you can say it could be possible

Second, your phrasing, "it only could be possible," does not correct Johnson. You are stating the same thing as Johnson. What "could be possible" is possible.
Click to expand...
No because saying something could be possible allows for it to be impossible, saying something is possible is stating that it cannot be impossible.

Third, I was making the second point with my post that what is possibly possible is possible. Your "could be" is just a way of saying "possibly."
Click to expand...
Your point is incorrect

Fourth, Johnson appears to be talking about epistemic possibility (note his use of the word "know"). Your reply to Johnson appears to be about epistemic possibility as well (note your use of the word "knowing"). In your replies to me, this point is not clear. But let's assume you're talking about epistemic possibility throughout.
Click to expand...
My response is grammatically and logically the ONLY correct way of making the statement.

Your point throughout seems to be that ignorance of impossibility does not support knowledge of possibility. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
My point is that not knowing if something is impossible doesn't mean that it is possible.

But impossibility is just the negation of possibility. Correct?

So if we are unable to negate a possibility, doesn't the possibility survive?
Click to expand...
Not at all impossible is the antonym of possible, not the negation. Something can either be possible or impossible. The lack of knowledge about its possibility cannot make the impossible possible. That is an illogical and absurd statement.
Look at it this way.
If you dont know if something is east you cannot say it is west you can only say that it could be west.
 
Elvira said:
The thing is, you're talking about negatives...in that sense there are lots of things God cannot do...because He is God Almighty...He cannot lie, He cannot do anything unjust, He cannot do anything unmerciful, He can do no wrong...but that doesn't mean He is not Almighty...
Click to expand...

If I'm going to go down this path, he does wrong, he allows us to have free will and make others suffer cruel lives and death, isn't it wrong of god to allow a prick to have free will while an innocent child or animal suffers at the hands he created?
 
lefty louie said:
If I'm going to go down this path, he does wrong, he allows us to have free will and make others suffer cruel lives and death, isn't it wrong of god to allow a prick to have free will while an innocent child or animal suffers at the hands he created?
Click to expand...

So what would you rather He do...destroy Adam and Eve, along with Satan, right off the bat? And what would that have proven?
 
Logicman said:
Let's let you be God for the time being.

Please tell me how you create man with free will and at the same time not allow him to sin (rape, war, slavery) if he wants? How do you do that?
Click to expand...

Well I don't like playing god, I'm simply far too limited for the position. But perhaps a just god would have given us a "human condition" where when we do something immoral, we would shed our skin or lose our hair. But why does man have to have free will? If god created us he didn't have to give us free will, that's a man made excuse, that god gave it to us.
 
Elvira said:
So what would you rather He do...destroy Adam and Eve, along with Satan, right off the bat? And what would that have proven?
Click to expand...

You must first assume there was an Adam and Eve, how do we know there was or is a Satin, sounds like another excuse to me, you know, "the devil made me do it".
 
lefty louie said:
You must first assume there was an Adam and Eve, how do we know there was or is a Satin, sounds like another excuse to me, you know, "the devil made me do it".
Click to expand...

Then you don't believe in God, so what are you arguing/angry about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom