Official Religious Debate Thread

[excruciator]

I guess I can't.

@Peter Popoff - a charlatan.

Why, some women pocket it $9048 bucks after sprinkling holy water on her face.

+ the guy is channeling the power of God. It must be true. It's God we are talking about.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

This limits God in the sense that adhering a single definition limits anything.

You and I have already discussed this, and limitations are something that can't be avoided.  God is logically incapable of making a four-sided triangle, for example.  Yes, it's a limitation.  Is it at all relevant? Could there be a God that didn't have a similar limitation? I believe the answer to both questions is No.

If this God is the true god, then I'd rather be aspiring to reach something different, greater (maybe not).

I really hope this isn't blasphemous, because it's a very interesting concept.  What if God is simply God relative to us, and this universe is his and his alone simply because he was the only one (of many gods) who created it?  One could understand if we were "gods" of computers, and one could further understand that one day they might surpass us.  Why might it not be the same with the God that we know of? If we're somehow reduced (or transcend) to pure spirit, is it possible to become more than God?

Unfortunately, I get the feeling that this sort of thing shouldn't be talked about...sort of an bad sensation in my stomach as I type it.  "Could we succeed where Lucifer failed?" That's the thought that went through my head right now, and that's terrifying that I would even consider it.

I dunno.  Maybe this will spark some interesting discussion, so I'll post this anyway and hope for the best.

[Smegma]

You and I have already discussed this, and limitations are something that can't be avoided.  God is logically incapable of making a four-sided triangle, for example.  Yes, it's a limitation.  Is it at all relevant? Could there be a God that didn't have a similar limitation? I believe the answer to both questions is No.

The answer to this question is yes as well, possibly. The point being that thinking in particulars with respect to God has a special feature.

I really hope this isn't blasphemous, because it's a very interesting concept.  What if God is simply God relative to us, and this universe is his and his alone simply because he was the only one (of many gods) who created it?  One could understand if we were "gods" of computers, and one could further understand that one day they might surpass us.  Why might it not be the same with the God that we know of? If we're somehow reduced (or transcend) to pure spirit, is it possible to become more than God?

What I speak of is the God you speak of, if his existence is true, then a greater God could and should exist.

[N. Escalona]

If there was something greater than God, then God would not be God.
If God were of the universe, then he could not have created it. He would not be God, because the universe would be greater than him.

Definitions are limiting in the sense that truth is limiting. This doesn't mean God is not omnipotent. It is better to think of it as delimitation rather than limitation.

[STM1993]

You and I have already discussed this, and limitations are something that can't be avoided.  God is logically incapable of making a four-sided triangle, for example.  Yes, it's a limitation.  Is it at all relevant? Could there be a God that didn't have a similar limitation? I believe the answer to both questions is No.

If God is omnipotent, everything is possible, but in the first place, triangles are 3-sided polygons, so there can't be 4-sided triangles. It's a problem/contradiction with the question rather than with the answer. Same goes for similar questions.

[Smegma]

If God were of the universe, then he could not have created it. He would not be God, because the universe would be greater than him.

Being all of the universe doesn't limit you to being just that.

Definitions are limiting in the sense that truth is limiting. This doesn't mean God is not omnipotent. It is better to think of it as delimitation rather than limitation.

We are talking about Got here, not truth.

[jettlarue]

If God were of the universe, then he could not have created it. He would not be God, because the universe would be greater than him.

Being all of the universe doesn't limit you to being just that.

Also, the rational of our understanding of physics could not be applied to the idea of God. No where does it say he must obey laws of physics while doing his shit.

[N. Escalona]

If God is omnipotent, everything is possible, but in the first place, triangles are 3-sided polygons, so there can't be 4-sided triangles. It's a problem/contradiction with the question rather than with the answer. Same goes for similar questions.

This is a good explanation, but limited. For example, the question "could God kill himself" can really only be answered with a flat "no". There are some things that are best considered as impossible for God to do.

@jettlarue: That's not physics, that's just plain logic. And God does indeed restrict himself to the laws of logic.

[excruciator]

If God is omnipotent, everything is possible, but in the first place, triangles are 3-sided polygons, so there can't be 4-sided triangles. It's a problem/contradiction with the question rather than with the answer. Same goes for similar questions.

This is a good explanation, but limited. For example, the question "could God kill himself" can really only be answered with a flat "no". There are some things that are best considered as impossible for God to do.

So hes not omnipotent.

[STM1993]

I find the term "omnipotent" to be a very flawed word because its definition means "being able to do anything". However, there are many logical paradoxes and contradictions that go against this term. Rather than describe God as omnipotent, I'd describe God as someone who can do anything that is LOGICAL.

If God could kill himself, then he is not omnipresent and eternal and could not have created time itself.

[Demonic]

He may goddamn kill himself if he wishes, but such an act would break your minds into tiny bits trying to comprehend it. Then he'd get better.

If you're going with the omnipotent image of a deity, why try to limit him with phrases and definitions invented by humans? Just because we have a quarter thousand of books claimed to be written by divine inspiritation, if a God exists, we still know jack shit about it's nature.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

And God does indeed restrict himself to the laws of logic.

Demonic kind of beat me to it, but I think this statement is just a bit flawed.  Rather, we can say that we cannot comprehend a God who doesn't have to adhere to logic.  Granted, for our purposes it's essentially the same thing, but the distinction does exist.

[Smegma]

For example, the question "could God kill himself" can really only be answered with a flat "no".

My God can.

if a God exists, we still know jack shit about it's nature.

We know quite a lot about God, infact, I'd argue we know all about God.

[Demonic]

While I would normaly be infact interested in your keen points, I am afraid it would just spin into a spiral of semantical boo-haa. If it's not the case, then share your wisdom with us.

My point is that examining a microchip, a computer or a nuclear missile doesn't tell us a whole lot about humanity - thus our entire universe and all the scriptures claimed to be sacred are just, at best, pointers. But even that is probably wrong, just as my metaphor is flawed.

[Smegma]

My point is that examining a microchip, a computer or a nuclear missile doesn't tell us a whole lot about humanity - thus our entire universe and all the scriptures claimed to be sacred are just, at best, pointers. But even that is probably wrong, just as my metaphor is flawed.

They hold the qualities of both true and false in terms of God.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

For example, the question "could God kill himself" can really only be answered with a flat "no".

My God can.

I'm not sure if mine can.  To me, for God to end his existence, there must be distinct states where he does exist and where he does not exist, and the former must occur before the latter.  Unfortunately, event sequences imply time, and saying that God's actions can be traced through time means that time is greater than he is.  Obviously, God can't be bounded by time, so he cannot exist in multiple states (or even exist and not exist).  Therefore, it is logically impossible for God to destroy himself.

We know quite a lot about God, infact, I'd argue we know all about God.

I think we can logically infer enough to mold God relative to our own knowledge, feelings, emotions, and experiences.  I don't think we can ever know details, like what his motivation is or what he'll do next.

[Luke Strife]

When you say that God is omnipotent, do you mean multidimensional as well?

I am not sure where you (generalising religious people here) stand on the subject of multidimensional theory.

I don't know what reaction I'll get from posting this, but here's a video that intrigued me, the part I'm referring to is later on, after the fourth dimension.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

When you say that God is omnipotent, do you mean multidimensional as well?

God is beyond dimensions.  Dimensions are a property of the universe, and God created that.  Therefore, he created dimensions as well, and can't be defined in terms of them.

[excruciator]

And God does indeed restrict himself to the laws of logic.

we can say that we cannot comprehend a God...

How convenient. We can't understand it therefore don't question it.

[Smegma]

How convenient. We can't understand it therefore don't question it.

Even though I disagree, its not what he means by it.