• 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?

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.

I was referring man made laws, not natural laws.
 
I was referring man made laws, not natural laws.



Then it was not an apt comparison. Natural/physical laws are more comparable, since you're addressing what is or isn't possible, not what is or isn't legal.
 
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.


So you'd prefer to be a robot, running a fixed program with no choice in the matter? I doubt many would agree with that.
 
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.

God did give us something to remind us of when we do bad. It's called a conscience. He also sends his Holy Spirit to convict people of their sins. But many harden their hearts and don't listen to their consciences or the Holy Spirit.

God doesn't have to give us free will, but he did. The other choice is making us as pre-programmed robots.

In the end, there is an end to all this, and then the Judgment.

For the saved, we will live eternally in heaven, where the Bible says there are no more sorrows and no more tears. And that's a very good deal.
 
For the saved, we will live eternally in heaven, where the Bible says there are no more sorrows and no more tears. And that's a very good deal.

Growing up I was taught that and must admit it was reassuring. But as I became an adult I realized this promise was similar to being good for Santa Claus.

Almost every culture has evolved some type of god to help explain what happens to them after death. In some ways this god figure helps keep some people to become better citizens and in other ways it fuels hate for others of different religion.

I just have a really hard time seeing what was to be gain by placing people on a planet and watching such natural disasters as hurricanes and earthquakes kill millions. And those deaths were not someone passing away quietly at home with family , no many struggled, suffered extreme pain, and gasped that last breath of air.
 
I am sure this can be explained away by either side, but I need to say it anyway because I have been in similar situations.

I was watching I Survived today, and a black man who's boat sank was swimming to an island but just about completely exhausted and could not go one more inch.
He asked God to please help him in any way to get to that shore, and a wave came and pushed him a bit toward the island.
This happened three more times until he was actually able to feel sand under his feet.

FAITH is something you have or you don't.
if he had only relied on himself, he would have drowned.
He instead called out and used his FAITH in something greater than himself for help.
Sometimes this is all it takes.
 
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


No because saying something could be possible allows for it to be impossible, saying something is possible is stating that it cannot be impossible.


Your point is incorrect


My response is grammatically and logically the ONLY correct way of making the statement.


My point is that not knowing if something is impossible doesn't mean that it is possible.


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.
No, I'm afraid "could be possible" just means "possibly possible," and that just means "possible."

No, the word impossible is formed by negating the word possible: in+possible = impossible.

No, east is not the negation of west. And "east-west" is not analogous to "possible-impossible."

No, your assertion that "saying something could be possible allows for it to be impossible" is incorrect and false.

If you insist on denying or rejecting the basic meanings of words in order to defend the untenable position you've adopted here, then we have nothing more to discuss, Quag.

Peace, brother.
 
...
I just have a really hard time seeing what was to be gain by placing people on a planet and watching such natural disasters as hurricanes and earthquakes kill millions. And those deaths were not someone passing away quietly at home with family , no many struggled, suffered extreme pain, and gasped that last breath of air.
Are you acquainted with Maugham's 1944 novel? Perhaps you know the motion picture of 1946 based on the novel?
viNLN6im.jpg
RzROv8qm.jpg

If the problem of evil (why is there suffering and death in the world?) interests you, I recommend book and movie to you, or book or movie. Both left a lasting impression on me.
 
No, I'm afraid "could be possible" just means "possibly possible,"
Yes I already stated that
and that just means "possible."
No it doesnt

No, the word impossible is formed by negating the word possible: in+possible = impossible.

No, east is not the negation of west. And "east-west" is not analogous to "possible-impossible."
Possible/impossible are antonyms
Possible:
A1 able to be done or achieved, or able to exist:

I can't get it all done by Friday - it's just not possible.

Is it possible to buy tickets in advance?

They got as far as was humanly possible (= as far as anyone could have) before turning back.

Opposite

impossible
Impossible:
something that cannot be expected to happen or exist:

She wants a man who is attractive and funny as well, which is asking the impossible in my opinion.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/


No, your assertion that "saying something could be possible allows for it to be impossible" is incorrect and false.
No it isnt

If you insist on denying or rejecting the basic meanings of words in order to defend the untenable position you've adopted here, then we have nothing more to discuss, Quag.

Peace, brother.
I am the one actually providing the definition of words with links to dictionaries so I dont see how you can claim I am rejecting the basic meanings of words or have an untenable position.
 
Growing up I was taught that and must admit it was reassuring. But as I became an adult I realized this promise was similar to being good for Santa Claus.

Well, we have the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Can you tell me some important person or event in the Gospels that's been shown to be false, as in Santa Claus?

I just have a really hard time seeing what was to be gain by placing people on a planet and watching such natural disasters as hurricanes and earthquakes kill millions. And those deaths were not someone passing away quietly at home with family , no many struggled, suffered extreme pain, and gasped that last breath of air.

There's going to be natural disasters and people are going to gasp that last breath of air whether there's a God or not. But at least with God those things are temporary. Heaven rocks, and it's a shame unbelievers are going to miss it.
 
Well, we have the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Can you tell me some important person or event in the Gospels that's been shown to be false, as in Santa Claus?
Prove Santa false



There's going to be natural disasters and people are going to gasp that last breath of air whether there's a God or not. But at least with God those things are temporary. Heaven rocks, and it's a shame unbelievers are going to miss it.

Yup you are definitely going to miss out on heaven
 
CrabCake introduced me to a new word this week: apokatastasis, (1) the state of being restored or reestablished; restitution, and (2) the doctrine that Satan and all sinners will ultimately be restored to God. Apokatastasis | Define Apokatastasis at Dictionary.com

The ultimate reconciliation of all is my hope.

As for the omnipotence of the Creator, Alexander Pope is right--we can reason only from what we know, and that's pretty limited.
 
I am sure this can be explained away by either side, but I need to say it anyway because I have been in similar situations.

I was watching I Survived today, and a black man who's boat sank was swimming to an island but just about completely exhausted and could not go one more inch.
He asked God to please help him in any way to get to that shore, and a wave came and pushed him a bit toward the island.
This happened three more times until he was actually able to feel sand under his feet.

FAITH is something you have or you don't.
if he had only relied on himself, he would have drowned.
He instead called out and used his FAITH in something greater than himself for help.
Sometimes this is all it takes.

If only one of the 9 people killed in that church in Charleston 2 years ago had faith then maybe God would have caused the killer's gun to misfire.

If someone survives a tragedy then it is God's work. If someone doesn't survive a tragedy does that same God ever get the blame?


If you want to believe in that I guess that is fine. At one time people believed the earth was flat and that was resolved.
 
That sophomoric satire has misled many an otherwise bright fellow.

But its ok. Just because you have been misled does not mean you can't get back on track
 
No, I'm afraid "could be possible" just means "possibly possible," and that just means "possible."

No, the word impossible is formed by negating the word possible: in+possible = impossible.

No, east is not the negation of west. And "east-west" is not analogous to "possible-impossible."

No, your assertion that "saying something could be possible allows for it to be impossible" is incorrect and false.

If you insist on denying or rejecting the basic meanings of words in order to defend the untenable position you've adopted here, then we have nothing more to discuss, Quag.

Peace, brother.

Yes I already stated that

No it doesnt


Possible/impossible are antonyms
Possible:
Impossible:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/



No it isnt


I am the one actually providing the definition of words with links to dictionaries so I dont see how you can claim I am rejecting the basic meanings of words or have an untenable position.

As much as I disagree with Quag when it comes to religious views, he's spot on about this "usage of logic" debate though... "could be possible" and "possible" are two different things... the first quote is for when you haven't yet established that something is possible, you haven't seen it happen yet, so from a purely logical standpoint, you don't truly know either way... it could be possible, but it could also be impossible, you just don't know because you haven't seen it happen... the second quote is for when you have now seen it happen at least one time, so you can now logically establish that something is definitely not impossible because it in fact did happen at least once...

Maybe I didn't describe it in a very good way, but that's my attempt at making it clearer... Quag can correct me if I'm agreeing with him in an illogical way ;)
 
Last edited:
Well, we have the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Can you tell me some important person or event in the Gospels that's been shown to be false, as in Santa Claus?



There's going to be natural disasters and people are going to gasp that last breath of air whether there's a God or not. But at least with God those things are temporary. Heaven rocks, and it's a shame unbelievers are going to miss it.

Sort of unrelated, but as a fellow believer, I think you'd be interested in this video...

https://youtu.be/8hOKA9fR2p4

Stuff like this only further convinces me that the God of The Bible is who he says he is... its amazing when you open your heart and ponder it...
 
As much as I disagree with Quag when it comes to religious views, he's spot on about this "usage of logic" debate though... "could be possible" and "possible" are two different things... the first quote is for when you haven't yet established that something is possible, you haven't seen it happen yet, so from a purely logical standpoint, you don't truly know either way... it could be possible, but it could also be impossible, you just don't know because you haven't seen it happen... the second quote is for when you have now seen it happen at least one time, so you can now logically establish that something is definitely not impossible because it in fact did happen at least once...

Maybe I didn't describe it in a very good way, but that's my attempt at making it clearer... Quag can correct me if I'm agreeing with him in an illogical way ;)

The only point I disagree with is the need to have seen it happen at least once, cant think of an example ATM but something can be proven possible but not actually happen.
 
If only one of the 9 people killed in that church in Charleston 2 years ago had faith then maybe God would have caused the killer's gun to misfire.

If someone survives a tragedy then it is God's work. If someone doesn't survive a tragedy does that same God ever get the blame?


If you want to believe in that I guess that is fine. At one time people believed the earth was flat and that was resolved.

Why are you trying to compare surviving/not surviving a tragedy to the erroneous belief that the world was flat? Science was able finally to demonstrate that this isn’t so and, centuries later, we now have photographic evidence from space. What are you expecting science to demonstrate here?
 
The only point I disagree with is the need to have seen it happen at least once, cant think of an example ATM but something can be proven possible but not actually happen.

Interesting point you bring up... And I can't think of an example offhand either, but would be interested in somebody coming up with one...
 
Last edited:
Why are you trying to compare surviving/not surviving a tragedy to the erroneous belief that the world was flat? Science was able finally to demonstrate that this isn’t so and, centuries later, we now have photographic evidence from space. What are you expecting science to demonstrate here?

It's also interesting that Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:10 both seem to make reference to a circular shaped earth back when those books were written.
 
As much as I disagree with Quag when it comes to religious views, he's spot on about this "usage of logic" debate though... "could be possible" and "possible" are two different things... the first quote is for when you haven't yet established that something is possible, you haven't seen it happen yet, so from a purely logical standpoint, you don't truly know either way... it could be possible, but it could also be impossible, you just don't know because you haven't seen it happen... the second quote is for when you have now seen it happen at least one time, so you can now logically establish that something is definitely not impossible because it in fact did happen at least once...

Maybe I didn't describe it in a very good way, but that's my attempt at making it clearer... Quag can correct me if I'm agreeing with him in an illogical way ;)
No, "could be" indicates possibility. And this is what logic says:

In S4, □□...□ = □ and ◊◊...◊ = ◊. This amounts to the idea that iteration of the modal operators is superfluous. Saying that A is necessarily necessary is considered a uselessly long-winded way of saying that A is necessary. [And saying that A is possibly possible is considered a uselessly long-winded way of saying that A is possible.]
Knowledge Representation with Non-Classical Logic
 
Yes I already stated that

No it doesnt


Possible/impossible are antonyms
Possible:
Impossible:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/



No it isnt


I am the one actually providing the definition of words with links to dictionaries so I dont see how you can claim I am rejecting the basic meanings of words or have an untenable position.
In fairness to Angel, we ended up having to resort to 'possibly possible' with Frank because he would not accept the logical caveat in the definition of 'possible'. That said, you are absolutely correct in the case of this assertion to dig your heels in until the not impossible/possible apologetic is cleared up.
 
Interesting point you bring up... And I can't think of an example offhand either, but would be interested in somebody coming up with one...
It applies to anything that inhabits the realm of our ignorance. It is actually an appeal to ignorance so pick your concept on that basis and you will have one.
 
Back
Top Bottom