Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:If God can do it all, would there be any limitations for Him?
Like I said before, such a God cannot logically exist.
Why can't this God exist (a God with no limitations)?
A God with no limitations could cause a rock to be black and red all over, no? Is that possible? A God with no limitations could cause himself to be God and not-God all over, at the same time, and in the same sense. Is that possible? A God with no limitations could create a rock so large he couldn't lift it, thus instantiating a logically contradictory state of affairs. Is that possible? I submit not.
We'll that is the definition of a God who can do it all.
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:You seem to be speaking for the Bible, Implicator, changing its words and meaning.
Well, I certainly share my own perception of what the Bible is saying, just as you do.
I thought so.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:The Bible states that God can do it all.
I disagree. I do not believe that the Bible, when viewed in its entirety, presents a God who can do it all, specifically because of passages such as this:
Num 23:19 (NIV) "God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?"
What is your point here? Then if God can't lie, then He is limited, controlled by a higher power that constitute to not lying. He has limitations, therefore, He can't be God. An entity that can't do anything He wants, can't be God. God can do it all. How do you want me to take these words from His own, from the Bible, the guide for humanity salvation.
If God cannot lie, then he is not a God who can do it all.
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:You're just assuming that God can't do it all.
I would submit that it is you who is assuming here, not me.
You know that this argument has been studied, not just by me but by many, many phylosophers and teologies. It isn't my opinion.
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:Doesn't this read like a contradiction to you? God can do it all, or can't He? Which one is it?
He can't, and no, it doesn't read like a contradiction to me.
Well, God can do it all.
I have another question for you, Implicator. Would you become a muslim?
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:If God can do it all, would there be any limitations for Him?
Like I said before, such a God cannot logically exist.
Why can't this God exist (a God with no limitations)?
A God with no limitations could cause a rock to be black and red all over, no? Is that possible? A God with no limitations could cause himself to be God and not-God all over, at the same time, and in the same sense. Is that possible? A God with no limitations could create a rock so large he couldn't lift it, thus instantiating a logically contradictory state of affairs. Is that possible? I submit not.
We'll that is the definition of a God who can do it all.
Do you accept my answer as proof that such a God cannot logically exist?
Yes, this God can't exist. But the Bible says He does.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:You seem to be speaking for the Bible, Implicator, changing its words and meaning.
Well, I certainly share my own perception of what the Bible is saying, just as you do.
I thought so.
So you agree that we both share our own perceptions of what the Bible is saying?
Yes, I share my own perception with logical proofs. You, on the other hand, don't share it logically.
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:The Bible states that God can do it all.
I disagree. I do not believe that the Bible, when viewed in its entirety, presents a God who can do it all, specifically because of passages such as this:
Num 23:19 (NIV) "God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?"
What is your point here? Then if God can't lie, then He is limited, controlled by a higher power that constitute to not lying. He has limitations, therefore, He can't be God. An entity that can't do anything He wants, can't be God. God can do it all. How do you want me to take these words from His own, from the Bible, the guide for humanity salvation.
If God cannot lie, then he is not a God who can do it all.
Any comments on my scriptural support for my perception that the God of the Bible cannot just do it all?
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:You're just assuming that God can't do it all.
I would submit that it is you who is assuming here, not me.
You know that this argument has been studied, not just by me but by many, many phylosophers and teologies. It isn't my opinion.
It doesn't matter how many philosophers or theologians have studied the problem. Many have studied the problem and have concluded just what I have concluded. Your response is a logical fallacy - an "appeal to the crowd". Now, what about the support I give about that the Bible does not present a God who can just do it all?
if you tell me that my response is a logical fallacy, it means that you don't understand the logic which applies to all humanity. That's what I'm getting from you.
If God can't do it all, why would He add it literally in His own words? Couldn't He just say "I can do lots of things"and that's it?
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:Doesn't this read like a contradiction to you? God can do it all, or can't He? Which one is it?
He can't, and no, it doesn't read like a contradiction to me.
Well, God can do it all.
Why do you say that? Can you refute the passage above that states God cannot lie? Can you offer an alternative explanation of how we should interpret this verse?
Well, we should interpret His verses literally (wait, I think I have said this before).
Jason Proudmoore wrote:I have another question for you, Implicator. Would you become a muslim?
I doubt it.
Why not?
I
Implicator, I now understand what you meant with your example.
But why include it here, what point would it clarify?
The sentences are contradictory when is applied universally.
The Bible has those contradictions in every emission, in every language. Since every language has these contradictions, then the Bible loses its logical meaning, and therefore, many people are skeptics.
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:If God can do it all, would there be any limitations for Him?
Like I said before, such a God cannot logically exist.
Why can't this God exist (a God with no limitations)?
A God with no limitations could cause a rock to be black and red all over, no? Is that possible? A God with no limitations could cause himself to be God and not-God all over, at the same time, and in the same sense. Is that possible? A God with no limitations could create a rock so large he couldn't lift it, thus instantiating a logically contradictory state of affairs. Is that possible? I submit not.
We'll that is the definition of a God who can do it all.
Do you accept my answer as proof that such a God cannot logically exist?
Yes, this God can't exist. But the Bible says He does.
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:You seem to be speaking for the Bible, Implicator, changing its words and meaning.
Well, I certainly share my own perception of what the Bible is saying, just as you do.
I thought so.
So you agree that we both share our own perceptions of what the Bible is saying?
Yes, I share my own perception with logical proofs. You, on the other hand, don't share it logically.
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:The Bible states that God can do it all.
I disagree. I do not believe that the Bible, when viewed in its entirety, presents a God who can do it all, specifically because of passages such as this:
Num 23:19 (NIV) "God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?"
If God cannot lie, then he is not a God who can do it all.
Any comments on my scriptural support for my perception that the God of the Bible cannot just do it all?
What is your point here? Then if God can't lie, then He is limited, controlled by a higher power that constitute to not lying. He has limitations, therefore, He can't be God. An entity that can't do anything He wants, can't be God. God can do it all. How do you want me to take these words from His own, from the Bible, the guide for humanity salvation.
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:You're just assuming that God can't do it all.
I would submit that it is you who is assuming here, not me.
You know that this argument has been studied, not just by me but by many, many phylosophers and teologies. It isn't my opinion.
It doesn't matter how many philosophers or theologians have studied the problem. Many have studied the problem and have concluded just what I have concluded. Your response is a logical fallacy - an "appeal to the crowd". Now, what about the support I give about that the Bible does not present a God who can just do it all?
If you tell me that my response is a logical fallacy, it means that you don't understand the logic which applies to all humanity. That's what I'm getting from you.
If God can't do it all, why would He add it literally in His own words? Couldn't He just say "I can do lots of things"and that's it?
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:Doesn't this read like a contradiction to you? God can do it all, or can't He? Which one is it?
He can't, and no, it doesn't read like a contradiction to me.
Well, God can do it all.
Why do you say that? Can you refute the passage above that states God cannot lie? Can you offer an alternative explanation of how we should interpret this verse?
Well, we should interpret His verses literally (wait, I think I have said this before).
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:I have another question for you, Implicator. Would you become a muslim?
I doubt it.
Why not?
Do you actually read the full text of all the posts?
Implicator wrote:
Now, reading this verse in English might lead you to believe that it is expressing a contradiction. Yet all along it might be warning people with Reflux disorder to keep away from peppers because they are spicy, even in cases when the pepper has not been cooked.
The verse doesn't lead me to believe that there is a contradiction. The things is that the word "hot" has two connotations: spicy and hot (temperature). But if you used this same verse in any other language, you have to change that same word (tranlated into another language) and include the word spicy (translated into that language). That's why this only applies to English alone, the replica of the same word that translates into two different meanings. Therefore, the logical sense won't contradict the premise in which you use it in English. Other languages don't have this contradiction with the word "hot" being spicy and hot (in temperature). It is irrelevant to this argument.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:
Now, reading this verse in English might lead you to believe that it is expressing a contradiction. Yet all along it might be warning people with Reflux disorder to keep away from peppers because they are spicy, even in cases when the pepper has not been cooked.
The verse doesn't lead me to believe that there is a contradiction. The things is that the word "hot" has two connotations: spicy and hot (temperature). But if you used this same verse in any other language, you have to change that same word (tranlated into another language) and include the word spicy (translated into that language). That's why this only applies to English alone, the replica of the same word that translates into two different meanings. Therefore, the logical sense won't contradict the premise in which you use it in English. Other languages don't have this contradiction with the word "hot" being spicy and hot (in temperature). It is irrelevant to this argument.
Jason, if you read the verse in English and had not yet read it in any other language, it is possible that you would consider the verse to be contradictory. But to make it easier to palate, consider the this one verse was split into two verses, written by two different authors, a few hundred years apart. Again, you read these two verses in different books in the Bible (maybe one in the OT, and the other in the NT), and you read it in English alone. It is even more likely now that you would consider that it might be a contradiction. (Remember, you don't have the benefit of having preexisting clarification as to the sense in which the terms are being used.)
If you read the same verses in another translation (same language, English), this ambiguity might be cleared up. And like you said, if you read those two verses in an entirely different language, the odds rise that the ambiguity might be cleared up. But since it is possible (even likely) that a reading in one translation in one language could lead you to view this as a contradiction, then my analogy is entirely relevant to this argument. I don't claim that this is the only way a person might see a contradiction in scripture that does not exist, but it is certainly one possible way, and because of that, it is entirely relevant to this argument.
Why do I think that this example is irrelevant to this argument? Because this verse just applies to the English language, not to every language, just like many verses in the Bible. So you won't be able to make a point here.
I
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:
Now, reading this verse in English might lead you to believe that it is expressing a contradiction. Yet all along it might be warning people with Reflux disorder to keep away from peppers because they are spicy, even in cases when the pepper has not been cooked.
The verse doesn't lead me to believe that there is a contradiction. The things is that the word "hot" has two connotations: spicy and hot (temperature). But if you used this same verse in any other language, you have to change that same word (tranlated into another language) and include the word spicy (translated into that language). That's why this only applies to English alone, the replica of the same word that translates into two different meanings. Therefore, the logical sense won't contradict the premise in which you use it in English. Other languages don't have this contradiction with the word "hot" being spicy and hot (in temperature). It is irrelevant to this argument.
Jason, if you read the verse in English and had not yet read it in any other language, it is possible that you would consider the verse to be contradictory. But to make it easier to palate, consider the this one verse was split into two verses, written by two different authors, a few hundred years apart. Again, you read these two verses in different books in the Bible (maybe one in the OT, and the other in the NT), and you read it in English alone. It is even more likely now that you would consider that it might be a contradiction. (Remember, you don't have the benefit of having preexisting clarification as to the sense in which the terms are being used.)
If you read the same verses in another translation (same language, English), this ambiguity might be cleared up. And like you said, if you read those two verses in an entirely different language, the odds rise that the ambiguity might be cleared up. But since it is possible (even likely) that a reading in one translation in one language could lead you to view this as a contradiction, then my analogy is entirely relevant to this argument. I don't claim that this is the only way a person might see a contradiction in scripture that does not exist, but it is certainly one possible way, and because of that, it is entirely relevant to this argument.
Why do I think that this example is irrelevant to this argument? Because this verse just applies to the English language, not to every language, just like many verses in the Bible. So you won't be able to make a point here.
So, what's next?
Jason Proudmoore wrote:What is your point here? Then if God can't lie, then He is limited, controlled by a higher power that constitute to not lying. He has limitations, therefore, He can't be God. An entity that can't do anything He wants, can't be God. God can do it all. How do you want me to take these words from His own, from the Bible, the guide for humanity salvation.
"He has limitations, therefore He can't be God."
Those are your exact words, Jason. They didn't come from the Bible, they didn't come from me. In fact, they fly in the face of what the Bible has to say about God. They are an assumption you have as to the nature of God, if God were to exist. Where does this assumption come from? You claim above that you are being logical in sharing your perception of the Bible, yet here you deny what the Bible says about the God it supposedly reveals. Why would you do that? What logic leads you to think you know more about God than the Bible does?
As to limitations, I never claimed that God was controlled by a higher power. I do not believe that the Bible presents us with a God who is limited by anything other than his own nature. If it is God's nature to never lie, then God will not (can not) ever lie. Now, how do I want you to take these words from His own mouth, the guide for salvation? I want you to take them literally, and I want you to rejoice that there is a God who cannot lie. When this God makes a promise (for instance, as to how salvation is to be accomplished) you can take his word to the bank specifically because he cannot lie.
Would you really prefer to put your faith for salvation in a God who just might end up lying?
The Bible clearly states that "God can do it all."When these words are applied universally, there is no contradiction about its literal meaning in the English language as well as other languages, which means that He can do whatever He wants. With this already a logical and physical ( taken from His own word, the Bible) evidence that state His nature, there is a contradiction when there are more verses that state that He is impotent at times. And God can't be impotent. If He is impotent, He is no God. Can you see the logic here?
Jason Proudmoore wrote:The Bible clearly states that "God can do it all."When these words are applied universally, there is no contradiction about its literal meaning in the English language as well as other languages, which means that He can do whatever He wants. With this already a logical and physical ( taken from His own word, the Bible) evidence that state His nature, there is a contradiction when there are more verses that state that He is impotent at times. And God can't be impotent. If He is impotent, He is no God. Can you see the logic here?
1) Let's see the specific verses(s) you are referring to, so that we can evaluate exactly what the Bible is saying.
2) Ambiguity of language is only one source of apparent contradictions. There are others as well. Once we have the verse(s) you are thinking of in front of us, we can evaluate whether or not there is a real contradiction, or simply a perceived one.
I
Implicator wrote:Jason Proudmoore wrote:The Bible clearly states that "God can do it all."When these words are applied universally, there is no contradiction about its literal meaning in the English language as well as other languages, which means that He can do whatever He wants. With this already a logical and physical ( taken from His own word, the Bible) evidence that state His nature, there is a contradiction when there are more verses that state that He is impotent at times. And God can't be impotent. If He is impotent, He is no God. Can you see the logic here?
1) Let's see the specific verses(s) you are referring to, so that we can evaluate exactly what the Bible is saying.
2) Ambiguity of language is only one source of apparent contradictions. There are others as well. Once we have the verse(s) you are thinking of in front of us, we can evaluate whether or not there is a real contradiction, or simply a perceived one.
I
Well, according to the bible he created everything. Does that count as being able to do 'anything'?
I don't think so ... as there are things that even I can do that we would not consider to be a creative act in the sense you are using the term.
I think it counts as being able to do some thing (and a pretty impressive some thing at that), but the act of creating everything is not the only thing that can be done.
I
Implicator, Implicator, why do you require physical evidence from me whenever I establish a strong argument about God existence?
Implicator wrote:
I don't think so ... as there are things that even I can do that we would not consider to be a creative act in the sense you are using the term.
I think it counts as being able to do some thing (and a pretty impressive some thing at that), but the act of creating everything is not the only thing that can be done.
I
Understood. My point was more that if he has the ability to create everything that we are currently aware of, it's a fair guess that he has the power to further maniuplate his creation as he sees fit.
However, that is assumption, so your point is taken.
