Christian Trap...

[neoolong]

"The translators did and unless someone can find a good reason not to, I'm going to trust them. You have failed to provide any argument to believe they made a mistake beyond saying 'they got it wrong'."

That's me saying that I believe the translators over you, not that I believe them over God.

I see you ignore the example then. More proof of my point.

I already told you what to look for. You still deny it.

You told me to do your research for you. I'ms aying that that isn't how debate works. Go provide the passage in the original Hebrew/Greek, with your translation into English and an explanation of why you translated it the way you did. Then you'll have an argument. As it stands you're just saying that the translators are wrong and telling me to go prove it for you. I've no reason to believe you.

V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam

Leviticus 20:13. It isn't so much a bad translation in the NIV, as it just adds stuff. Like a death sentence.

The translation is basically it's an abomination for a man to lie with a man like a woman. End. Oh, and there is a context for that.

Of course I don't accept the Bible as a source for morality. The central figure is a murderer.

Only under your morality.

Yeah, of course that only happens if you don't start with the premise that the central figure is always moral despite his actions.

[Lagmonster]

It's a bit like the age old kunundrum (spelling?); Can God make an object so large he can't lift it?

I've heard that one argued as being a logical impossibility. It's like the immovable object and the unstoppable force: they cannot both exist in the same universe, under dictate of logic.

Which is a nice way of saying that omnipotence is impossible. If you can do ANYTHING, then you can do the impossible. Since the impossible is...well...impossible...well, I figure, if an omnipotent god ever existed, he self-destructed the moment he came into being due to massive contradiction.

[Jonathan]

Which is a nice way of saying that omnipotence is impossible. If you can do ANYTHING, then you can do the impossible. Since the impossible is...well...impossible...well, I figure, if an omnipotent god ever existed, he self-destructed the moment he came into being due to massive contradiction.

<sigh>

There is impossible and there is intrinsically impossible. Omnipotence allows you do all which is not intrinsically impossible as that which is intrinsically possible makes no sense and the situation cannot ever occur.

[Darth Gojira]

Which is a nice way of saying that omnipotence is impossible. If you can do ANYTHING, then you can do the impossible. Since the impossible is...well...impossible...well, I figure, if an omnipotent god ever existed, he self-destructed the moment he came into being due to massive contradiction.

<sigh>

There is impossible and there is intrinsically impossible. Omnipotence allows you do all which is not intrinsically impossible as that which is intrinsically possible makes no sense and the situation cannot ever occur.

Your'e arguing semantics, to quote 3PO: "He made a fair move, screaming about it won't help you."

[Lagmonster]

Which is a nice way of saying that omnipotence is impossible. If you can do ANYTHING, then you can do the impossible. Since the impossible is...well...impossible...well, I figure, if an omnipotent god ever existed, he self-destructed the moment he came into being due to massive contradiction.

<sigh>

There is impossible and there is intrinsically impossible. Omnipotence allows you do all which is not intrinsically impossible as that which is intrinsically possible makes no sense and the situation cannot ever occur.

Omnipotence is what it is. Not to be harsh, but you cannot re-define terms to suit the circumstances they describe. If you feel you have to do so for it to be an appropriate description, then you need to find a different term for it.

[SirNitram]

Which is a nice way of saying that omnipotence is impossible. If you can do ANYTHING, then you can do the impossible. Since the impossible is...well...impossible...well, I figure, if an omnipotent god ever existed, he self-destructed the moment he came into being due to massive contradiction.

<sigh>

There is impossible and there is intrinsically impossible. Omnipotence allows you do all which is not intrinsically impossible as that which is intrinsically possible makes no sense and the situation cannot ever occur.

Given that the unmovable object is instrinsically unmovable, I'd call moving it instrinsically impossible. Unless you have magically found a way to prove some things are more impossible than others(A worthless phrase).

I'm surprised you're trying this route, there is a resolution to the conundrum.

[Jonathan]

Your'e arguing semantics, to quote 3PO: "He made a fair move, screaming about it won't help you."

Of course I'm arguing semantics. I'm defining omnipotence. Arguing semantics is sometimes necessary and is not, in of itself, bad. I'm saying that they have the definition of omnipotence wrong because omnipotence is being able to do th eimpossible, but not the intrinsically impossible. Otherwise the word would have no menaing.

[Jonathan]

Omnipotence is what it is.

Yes. Thank you.

Not to be harsh, but you cannot re-define terms to suit the circumstances they describe. If you feel you have to do so for it to be an appropriate description, then you need to find a different term for it.

I'm not redefining it, I"m defining it correctly. Omnipotence is being able to do all which it is possible to do. That excludes the intriniscially impossible because those are situations which are non-sequiteurs and can never actually occur. You cannot define omnipotence to be being able to do the intrinsically impossible because there is nothing which can be done in those situations. Omnipotence does not cover them. Otherwise the word would have no sensible meaning.

[Jonathan]

Given that the unmovable object is instrinsically unmovable, I'd call moving it instrinsically impossible. Unless you have magically found a way to prove some things are more impossible than others(A worthless phrase).

Some things are more impossible than others. Something can be prohibitted by the laws of nature and therfore impossible, but still be accomplished by the supernatural. Ther are, however, some things which are by definition impossible. Such as an all-powerful entity creating something it can't move. The question has no answer as any answer you try creates a contradiction with the stated nature of the entity or the object, altering the question. In other words, the question makes no sense and the situation can never arise. It is intrinsically impossible.

I'm surprised you're trying this route,

I'm not 'trying a route', I'm correcting people on their definitions and clearing up the situation.

there is a resolution to the conundrum.

If you tihnk there is, why don't you give it?

[SirNitram]

Given that the unmovable object is instrinsically unmovable, I'd call moving it instrinsically impossible. Unless you have magically found a way to prove some things are more impossible than others(A worthless phrase).

Some things are more impossible than others. Something can be prohibitted by the laws of nature and therfore impossible, but still be accomplished by the supernatural. Ther are, however, some things which are by definition impossible. Such as an all-powerful entity creating something it can't move. The question has no answer as any answer you try creates a contradiction with the stated nature of the entity or the object, altering the question. In other words, the question makes no sense and the situation can never arise. It is intrinsically impossible.

That paragraph makes no sense. Things the supernatural can't accomplish? I was unaware we had scientifically analyzed the supernatural to determine it's limits. Or, in other words, you're making it up. Omnipotent means all-powerful: One cannot weasel out of it by declaring some things beyond even it's reach.

EDIT: Corrected a typo.

I'm surprised you're trying this route,

I'm not 'trying a route', I'm correcting people on their definitions and clearing up the situation.

Claiming to know the limits of the supernatural is blowing smoke out of your ass and calling it proof. In other words, I expect better from you, but apparantly I'm wrong.

there is a resolution to the conundrum.

If you tihnk there is, why don't you give it?

I want to see if you can figure it out, since your the one trying to resolve it with nonsense.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not redefining it, I"m defining it correctly. Omnipotence is being able to do all which it is possible to do. That excludes the intriniscially impossible because those are situations which are non-sequiteurs and can never actually occur.

Actually, a non-sequitur is a logical connection which does not follow. It has nothing to do with things that are physically impossible; the correct term for those is simply "impossible feats", unless they're described in the Bible, in which case you believe in them and call them "miracles".

[Jonathan]

I'm not redefining it, I"m defining it correctly. Omnipotence is being able to do all which it is possible to do. That excludes the intriniscially impossible because those are situations which are non-sequiteurs and can never actually occur.

Actually, a non-sequitur is a logical connection which does not follow. It has nothing to do with things that are physically impossible; the correct term for those is simply "impossible feats", unless they're described in the Bible, in which case you believe in them and call them "miracles".

ACtually, you can't call it an impossible feat or a possible feat. You could call it an impossible question because the question itself is illogical. It requires contradictions to be answered, therefore it is a non-sequitur.

[Darth Servo]

ACtually, you can't call it an impossible feat or a possible feat. You could call it an impossible question because the question itself is illogical. It requires contradictions to be answered, therefore it is a non-sequitur.

Wow. Even after DW explains what a non-sequitur is and is not, this idiot goes on to demonstrate that he still doesn't know what it is.

[Darth Wong]

ACtually, you can't call it an impossible feat or a possible feat. You could call it an impossible question because the question itself is illogical. It requires contradictions to be answered, therefore it is a non-sequitur.

If the question itself is illogical, then it is self-contradictory in some way. It is still not a non-sequitur. What part of "does not follow" do you not understand? It is impossible for a question to be a non-sequitur, because a non-sequitur can only occur in an argument which attempts to logically connect A to B. A question is not an argument.

It is unbelievable that I must spell this out in such excruciating detail.

[Jonathan]

ACtually, you can't call it an impossible feat or a possible feat. You could call it an impossible question because the question itself is illogical. It requires contradictions to be answered, therefore it is a non-sequitur.

If the question itself is illogical, then it is self-contradictory in some way. It is still not a non-sequitur. What part of "does not follow" do you not understand? It is impossible for a question to be a non-sequitur, because a non-sequitur can only occur in an argument which attempts to logically connect A to B. A question is not an argument.

It is unbelievable that I must spell this out in such excruciating detail.

Premise 1: An omnipotent being can create anything he wants
Premise 2: An omnipotent being can do anything he wants

Question: Can an omnipotent being therefore create something he cannot lift?

Either answer requires a contraciction with one of the two premises.

An inconsistency such as this is listed as a type of non-sequitur at
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/nonseq.htm
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/incon.htm

Anyway, whether it's called a non-sequitut or not is irrelevant and I'll stop calling it one if we can't agree on it. My explanation of why it doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent still stands unaddressed.

[Rye]

I was just thinking, could an omnipotent being make sort of a dual system, where he both lifts and does not lift the object?

[SirNitram]

I was just thinking, could an omnipotent being make sort of a dual system, where he both lifts and does not lift the object?

It'd require use of an Avatar, something the Christian God seems incapable of.

[Darth Wong]

Premise 1: An omnipotent being can create anything he wants
Premise 2: An omnipotent being can do anything he wants

Question: Can an omnipotent being therefore create something he cannot lift?

That is a conclusion cloaked as a question. Anything which includes the word "therefore" is actually an argument. It is being phrased as a question in the same way that a Jeopardy answer is phrased as a question, but it is not a genuine question.

Anyway, whether it's called a non-sequitut or not is irrelevant and I'll stop calling it one if we can't agree on it. My explanation of why it doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent still stands unaddressed.

God isn't omnipotent because of all the things he could not accomplish in the Bible, like making everyone love him, ousting Israelite enemies with iron chariots, or freeing the Israelites from Egypt without having to resort to terrorism. Oh wait, now you'll get like a Rabid Fiver in a sci-fi debate and say he was "holding back"

[Slartibartfast]

Which is a nice way of saying that omnipotence is impossible. If you can do ANYTHING, then you can do the impossible. Since the impossible is...well...impossible...well, I figure, if an omnipotent god ever existed, he self-destructed the moment he came into being due to massive contradiction.

<sigh>

There is impossible and there is intrinsically impossible. Omnipotence allows you do all which is not intrinsically impossible as that which is intrinsically possible makes no sense and the situation cannot ever occur.

Omnipotence is what it is. Not to be harsh, but you cannot re-define terms to suit the circumstances they describe. If you feel you have to do so for it to be an appropriate description, then you need to find a different term for it.

Quasi-hyperpotence Mk III

[Darth Gojira]

Your'e arguing semantics, to quote 3PO: "He made a fair move, screaming about it won't help you."

Of course I'm arguing semantics. I'm defining omnipotence. Arguing semantics is sometimes necessary and is not, in of itself, bad. I'm saying that they have the definition of omnipotence wrong because omnipotence is being able to do th eimpossible, but not the intrinsically impossible. Otherwise the word would have no menaing.

What I *meant* to say is you're using a VERY narrow definition.

[meNNis]

Hmm.... is it just me, or has God and Logic been used in the same sentance way too many times in this thread

[Queeb Salaron]

Hmm.... is it just me, or has God and Logic been used in the same sentance way too many times in this thread

Amen, but only by a certain honorable yet overly-religious member of SDnet. Let me throw in a little tidbit: God did not invent logic. That was a creation of man. Unfortunately for God, logic defeats the idea of God. And thus, man has killed God.

::Gives the borrowed philosophy back to Nietzsche:: Thanks for the tidbit. Can I have my ladder back?

[Rye]

I was just thinking, could an omnipotent being make sort of a dual system, where he both lifts and does not lift the object?

It'd require use of an Avatar, something the Christian God seems incapable of.

Wasn't jesus an avatar?

[jegs2]

Got the following response from another board upon posting your "Christian Trap:"

In thinking a little more about this, I'm inclined to say that their reasoning in labeling God as a sociopath if He called for a baby to be killed is flawed. Test my reasoning here.

I believe it was Paul (?) that mentioned something about the clay not having a choice about what was done to it by the Potter. If God called for a baby to be killed (as He did, in the OT), then He has a good reason for it. Who gets to define what a "good" reason is? He does. Why? He's the Creator of the baby, and of ALL the rules in the universe. He also knows that the baby will be in heaven after it's death on earth, which is much finer place to be. In human reasoning, one might label God a sociopath, but they lack the necessary facts and perspective to do so.

Additionally, I doubt these people are all vegetarians, which means that they agree with the killing of animals, presumably with a higher purpose (nourishment of humans). Since they would have to have come to the conclusion that humans have a right to judge that THEIR needs come before those of the animals, to the point of the animals death, then why would it be any different for God, deciding who lives and who dies?

Does that logic hold water?

Comments?

[SirNitram]

I was just thinking, could an omnipotent being make sort of a dual system, where he both lifts and does not lift the object?

It'd require use of an Avatar, something the Christian God seems incapable of.

Wasn't jesus an avatar?

Jesus was his son, or so sayeth the Book. An Avatar would be God actually manifesting himself in some mortal form. Again, the Christian God seems singularly incapable of this.