God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2013, 09:47 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(25-02-2013 09:36 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:As it turns out, I was right about you being unable to name the title of a single book or offer a single citation to prove that one of those books is biased and contradictory. It very much seems like you were lying after all.

You're right, Vosur. I really need to put Smile or something similar since you have neither a sense of humor or a sense of irony.

I simply churned back the same things I hear about the Bible as about EB books on Evolution. They are "self-contradictory" (and I know we can find examples if we cared to look--I have and did and continue to do so) and they are "biased" (Chas recommending Dawkins' EB books means there's no bias within, of course Smile) "hearsay in nature" (there is micro-Evolution observable now but no transition between kinds or families of species) and these books' countless assumptions--from uniformitarian conditions of pressure and temperature to mythic nonsense about how water arrived in great quantities on the Earth (maybe it was impacts with asteroids/planetoids from the outer reaches past Jupiter or maybe it was different temperature and pressure retaining certain elements from ancient Earth--though whether ancient Earth was Hadean or cool, who knows?) is all-but-laughable.

We all know Creationists talk about a young solar system (5,000 to 500 million years, I don't care, take your pick) and point out dozens of facts, like how few comets should remain here... and there is conjecture about the Kuiper Belt (we've found 100 objects within but 10,000 are conjectured to exist or more) AND a Oort Cloud, which has never been seen but Go-go-gosh, it just HAS to be there somewhere or the Creationists are right... sad.


You mistake your abject ignorance for knowledge, how cute.

You have YET to post a single Dawkin's fallacy or argue against a properly cited quotes from one of his books that you claim to have read (this is in addition to failing to provide any evidence for any of your assertions ever), just more vague accusations without any meat; just as I said you would. You're too fucking lazy and stupid, thanks for proving me right. Now fuck off you dickless wanker...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-02-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Wait a minute... how can someone be a dickless wanker? Huh

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
25-02-2013, 11:41 AM
RE: AW: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(25-02-2013 07:58 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 01:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I hope you understand that if you employ the "argument"(I put it in quotes because it is indeed a bad argument) against a thiest who uses a definition of omnipotence close to mine, you are making a straw man argument.
You don't say. Drinking Beverage

(25-02-2013 01:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  According to this catholic encyclopedia omnipotence is defined as "the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible".

There are over a billion catholics so I think I am safe ground in saying my defintion of omnipotence is one commonly used by theist world wide.
How exactly is this relevant to the discussion?

Some people are claiming I am making a special pleading error by ignoring the definitions for omnipotence they presented. The defintion from the catholic encyclopedia is relavent because it shows that the definition I am using is in wide use....yet it gets ignored by those people because it is inconsistent with their positions. Who is really making the special pleading?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 12:12 PM
RE: AW: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(25-02-2013 11:41 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 07:58 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You don't say. Drinking Beverage

How exactly is this relevant to the discussion?

Some people are claiming I am making a special pleading error by ignoring the definitions for omnipotence they presented. The defintion from the catholic encyclopedia is relavent because it shows that the definition I am using is in wide use....yet it gets ignored by those people because it is inconsistent with their positions. Who is really making the special pleading?

It is special pleading because Catholics need their own special definition of 'omnipotent' specifically to rectify the problems the word causes when attributed to their God. The definition of 'omnipotent' ONLY changes, and acquires the special caveat of logical restrictions, when applied to Yahweh. Catholics need a special version just for them. THAT is special pleading, for fuck's sake...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 12:13 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2013 12:20 PM by Vosur.)
RE: AW: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(25-02-2013 11:41 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Some people are claiming I am making a special pleading error by ignoring the definitions for omnipotence they presented. The defintion from the catholic encyclopedia is relavent because it shows that the definition I am using is in wide use....yet it gets ignored by those people because it is inconsistent with their positions. Who is really making the special pleading?
I don't dispute that the term "omnipotence" is polysemous and that it can be used the way you do. The point I was trying to make is that your usage of it is irrelevant to this topic's discussion because the paradox' aim is not to show that your particular concept of omnipotence is logically impossible.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: AW: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(25-02-2013 12:13 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 11:41 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Some people are claiming I am making a special pleading error by ignoring the definitions for omnipotence they presented. The defintion from the catholic encyclopedia is relavent because it shows that the definition I am using is in wide use....yet it gets ignored by those people because it is inconsistent with their positions. Who is really making the special pleading?
I don't dispute that the term "omnipotence" is polysemous and that it can be used the way you do. The point I was trying to make is that your usage of it is irrelevant to this topic's discussion because the paradox' aim is not to show that your particular concept of omnipotence is logically impossible.
And I agree that some, maybe most theists, have an absurd notion of omnipotence. I don't fault you one bit for trying to call them out on it. Where I find fault is in using unintelligible nonsense and calling it good argumentation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: AW: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(25-02-2013 12:12 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 11:41 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Some people are claiming I am making a special pleading error by ignoring the definitions for omnipotence they presented. The defintion from the catholic encyclopedia is relavent because it shows that the definition I am using is in wide use....yet it gets ignored by those people because it is inconsistent with their positions. Who is really making the special pleading?

It is special pleading because Catholics need their own special definition of 'omnipotent' specifically to rectify the problems the word causes when attributed to their God. The definition of 'omnipotent' ONLY changes, and acquires the special caveat of logical restrictions, when applied to Yahweh. Catholics need a special version just for them. THAT is special pleading, for fuck's sake...
Its not just 1 billion Catholics. Many other theists will claim that it is impossible for God to do something against his nature. For instance it would be impossible for God to sin.
You are making an error of conflating multiple definitions for a particular word with the changing of a definition of a particular word.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 02:26 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Quote:According to the Bible, Yahweh is actually able to do both unlawful and unloving things.
Which of that long and dull list was a violation of Torah law? Sin brings death. Man is not to murder but God takes the life of sinful creatures...
And how can you define "loving"? We Christians know God does loving things per a master plan. Who are you to say what is loving? By that, I mean on what basis do you know and affirm what love is? According to your tenets, if God is a mere person and does not feel a biochemical attraction to another being, He can do with it everything or nothing. Be consistent as a naturalist, please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 02:45 PM
RE: AW: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(25-02-2013 02:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  And I agree that some, maybe most theists, have an absurd notion of omnipotence. I don't fault you one bit for trying to call them out on it. Where I find fault is in using unintelligible nonsense and calling it good argumentation.
Who called what unintelligible nonsense good argumentation? Citations, please.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 02:55 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(25-02-2013 02:26 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Which of that long and dull list was a violation of Torah law?
Exodus 20:13
13 Thou shalt not kill.

(25-02-2013 02:26 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Sin brings death. Man is not to murder but God takes the life of sinful creatures...
And how can you define "loving"? We Christians know God does loving things per a master plan. Who are you to say what is loving? By that, I mean on what basis do you know and affirm what love is? According to your tenets, if God is a mere person and does not feel a biochemical attraction to another being, He can do with it everything or nothing. Be consistent as a naturalist, please.
By taking a look into a dictionary.

loving
Syllabification: (lov·ing)
Pronunciation: /ˈləviNG/
adjective
feeling or showing love or great care

If you think that murdering and commanding the murder of innocent children is an act of love or great care, you probably belong into a mental hospital.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: