And you on your debating skills. Whenever you decide to rise above ad hominem slurs and copycat rhetoric as the basis of your arguments, I might take a notion to acknowledge and respond to them.
For those actually interested in a debate on the issues, I submit that willfully and voluntarily limiting oneself to a subset of one’s abilities is not the same as not having those abilities. Is a man incapable of sitting down in a chair simply because he has decided not to do it?
Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you!
Some here have but offered us variations on the “Disneyland defense” of evil: That God makes everything okay in the end by bringing us to to our reward in heaven, so evil is only an illusion resulting from our “temporary” existence in this reality and our inability to see that God really loves us after all.
Such arguments are like saying that it’s okay for a father to sexually molest his children if he takes them to Disneyland later to make it up to them!
Is God a child molester? You be the judge.
I’m not surprised that you have to have things explained to you, Libertarian.
When do you think you’ll stop being a disingenuous bully?
Nice try at the analogy Ambushed…it almost works. The idea posed is that the ‘suffering’ / punishment/ whatever you wanna call it, helps bring about the good. If you’d like to compare it to a father-child relationship, it’s much more like taking away a candy bar so that the child will not be sick.
Must you always be so vindictive, sir?
Moving on…
If there was such a thing as “omnistandience”, then someone who possessed that attribute would lose it if he sat down.
Really, Lib, I don’t understand why you feel you must attack me all the time.
My previous post was directed at Lib, not Phil.
Attacks work both ways… as does vindictiveness…
Gp
Limiting oneself to possessing certain abilities, and limiting oneself from engaging in the use of certain abilities are two entirely different animals. Of course, if this god being exists and is omnipotent, it can choose to not actively use all of its abilities - however, it will remain omnipotent. I have the ability to sit - I choose not to sit - but I retain the power of sitting for my use.
If it chooses however to forfeit omnipotence, it is by definition no longer omnipotent - it has actually given up the ability, not just made a choice to refrain from using such ability.
He made (has made, is making, will make) a choice. Specifically, a moral choice.
I think you all are missing my point. Maybe God isn’t omni-anything. Maybe he can’t see the future. Maybe he can’t do everything at once. Maybe he is like the greek gods in that he has very limited powers. He can still be God, and the Holy Spirit, and create a Son. But maybe the OT bible writers made him up to be super god to compete with the pagan goat gods.
That would explain how evil could exist and how group prayer could be heard.
I dont know, maybe reading all the quantum physics lately has fouled up my mind. damn Stephen Hawkins!
You sure that wasn’t Sadie Hawkins?
grimpixie, you quoted Libertarian there, not me. I only responded to his attack against me. See here
super_head, who clearly understands debate and understands the true meaining of words, backs up my statements on omnipotence and how limiting omnipotence necessarily results in non-omnipotence. Nowhere did I claim that omnipotence requires that everything possible must always be done by an omnipotent entity, as Libertarian’s irrational argument assumes.
That vindictive attack was written by Libertarian in insulting ME. See Lib’s post of 10-22-2001 05:40 AM.
You have erred in your quotation, Gp, for I didn’t write that. I merely responded to Libertarian’s attack later with a paraphrase of his own words.
If Lib were really a fair and intellectually honest man, I believe he should have spoken up and corrected your (doubtless innocent) misrepresentation and identified himself as the author of those words. Alas, we have seen that such is not the case.
On the substantive side of the debate, we can see that super_head backed up my position completely on the matter of my argument that limiting omnipotence yields non-omnipotence. No where did I ever claim that omnipotence requires an entity that possesses that attribute to always do everything all the time! Choice is in no way limited by omnipotence, and I never claimed it was!
It is curious, don’t you think, that when I say something I am attacked by Lib but when someone else says the same essential point he doesn’t attack them? It would seem that Lib has a personal grudge against me.
Please ignore the previous of those last two posts. The first timed-out and I thought it was gone, so I typed in a new reply.
Adam and Eve did not eat an “apple”, but rather “the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil”, and Adam was thus sent East of Eden. Read the text carefully. Their sin had the direct result in that they learned what was good and evil. When an animal kills and eats its prey, we do not impart a motive of evil to the animal. We interpret events as evil (or possibly good). And also carefully note that the text clearly says that all of the creation myth is a “story”, it does not claim that it is a historical account, but rather an explanation of who we are and who we got here. Oh, and it does not specify that Eve was tossed out of the garden.
Ooops - my bad!! :o
I meant to quote you as saying:
and comment that y’all have both stopped listening to the other since your first exchange, so there is no one who can claim the moral high ground here…
'pollogies for the mis-directed quote.
Gp