The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Views.
Page:
Blank wrote:
> yadda yadda yadda. Christianity falls down.
I'm no great exponent of Christianity but your argument is a little weak to put the point mildly. If it is taken as a fact that God is omnipotent then he can do anything, which includes making a boulder he cannot lift and lifting that boulder. Because that is the nature of omnipotence. This view may sound dumb to a lot of people, but we're also talking about a God that is omnipresent, to which your argument would go along the lines of "what he can be in China *and* America at the same time?! syeah right". Sure it makes no sense but then that's the point of religion assclown, if you could explain it then people wouldn't believe in it because religion's purpose is to provide a buffer against the things that we don't understand.
Some people argue that many of the theological problems about God arise from his personification by believers. If you believe in a good and merciful God then you might be pretty hacked off when bad things happen to you that you don't believe are warranted. You might wonder why this great God is so mean to you. If you view God as a person then you can ask stupid questions about creating rocks too heavy too lift. But some people regard God in a more intangible sense. A more Allah-type God. But also a God that is neither good nor evil and holds no favours nor bears any grudges.
Maybe it's all theological mumbo-jumbo but let's face it, if you want to be a hardcore atheist you're going to have to come up with better stuff than rock lifting. Did it ever occur to you that your criteria for omnipotence preclude anybody ever from being omnipotent, and do not actually approach the question of God's existence from any firm grounding, as your argument is based entirely in semantics. But if you want to talk about the meanings of words then hey, be my guest, it's just I don't think you're get anything out of it.
If you want some other stupid problems to consider try these out:
In order to reach a wall a man has to walk from A to B. In order to get from A to B he must first reach half way between A and B, point C, and in order to reach point C, he must first reach half way between C and A, point D. And so on and so forth. Things is, you can keep halfing ad infinitum. That means the man, in order to walk from A to B, must complete an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time, sure he's got his whole life, but how can he complete that infinite amount of tasks?
Or put it a different way. You have a light bulb that it is wired up so it stays on for 20 seconds and then off for 10, on for 5 then off for 2.5 seconds, and so on and so forth. You cut the electricity after exactly two minutes. Is the light on or off? Theoretically the light should be on and off, because you can halve things ad infinitum. Maybe this suggests that infinite sequences can have finite answers and maybe it's a load of conceptual crap. But in the end it's not much different from debating whether omnipotent people can lift rocks heavier than they can lift.
> yadda yadda yadda. Christianity falls down.
I'm no great exponent of Christianity but your argument is a little weak to put the point mildly. If it is taken as a fact that God is omnipotent then he can do anything, which includes making a boulder he cannot lift and lifting that boulder. Because that is the nature of omnipotence. This view may sound dumb to a lot of people, but we're also talking about a God that is omnipresent, to which your argument would go along the lines of "what he can be in China *and* America at the same time?! syeah right". Sure it makes no sense but then that's the point of religion assclown, if you could explain it then people wouldn't believe in it because religion's purpose is to provide a buffer against the things that we don't understand.
Some people argue that many of the theological problems about God arise from his personification by believers. If you believe in a good and merciful God then you might be pretty hacked off when bad things happen to you that you don't believe are warranted. You might wonder why this great God is so mean to you. If you view God as a person then you can ask stupid questions about creating rocks too heavy too lift. But some people regard God in a more intangible sense. A more Allah-type God. But also a God that is neither good nor evil and holds no favours nor bears any grudges.
Maybe it's all theological mumbo-jumbo but let's face it, if you want to be a hardcore atheist you're going to have to come up with better stuff than rock lifting. Did it ever occur to you that your criteria for omnipotence preclude anybody ever from being omnipotent, and do not actually approach the question of God's existence from any firm grounding, as your argument is based entirely in semantics. But if you want to talk about the meanings of words then hey, be my guest, it's just I don't think you're get anything out of it.
If you want some other stupid problems to consider try these out:
In order to reach a wall a man has to walk from A to B. In order to get from A to B he must first reach half way between A and B, point C, and in order to reach point C, he must first reach half way between C and A, point D. And so on and so forth. Things is, you can keep halfing ad infinitum. That means the man, in order to walk from A to B, must complete an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time, sure he's got his whole life, but how can he complete that infinite amount of tasks?
Or put it a different way. You have a light bulb that it is wired up so it stays on for 20 seconds and then off for 10, on for 5 then off for 2.5 seconds, and so on and so forth. You cut the electricity after exactly two minutes. Is the light on or off? Theoretically the light should be on and off, because you can halve things ad infinitum. Maybe this suggests that infinite sequences can have finite answers and maybe it's a load of conceptual crap. But in the end it's not much different from debating whether omnipotent people can lift rocks heavier than they can lift.
Thing is, if there's a God, and he can make rocks, then I reckon he could move any rock that he could make.
Even if he couldn't lift it, which I doubt, chances are that he could move a mountain beneath it, forcing it to move anyway.
Even if he couldn't lift it, which I doubt, chances are that he could move a mountain beneath it, forcing it to move anyway.
Boulder.
Not "bolder"
If you're going to discuss theological idealism and the possibility of omnipotence, at least spell it right.
Not "bolder"
If you're going to discuss theological idealism and the possibility of omnipotence, at least spell it right.
Or perhaps we're missing the point?
A bolder what?
Deity?
A bolder what?
Deity?
Do not confuse stupidity with sage-like musings.
No one can cure baldness.
That's a fact.
That's a fact.
Mr. Happy wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> yadda yadda yadda. Christianity falls down.
>
> I'm no great exponent of Christianity but your argument is a little
> weak to put the point mildly.
Hows about this - it wasn't my argument.
> If it is taken as a fact that God is
> omnipotent then he can do anything, which includes making a boulder he
> cannot lift and lifting that boulder.
Which is, of course, impossible. IMPOSSIBLE. Omnipotence is impossible, and you can't argue otherwise.
> Because that is the nature of
> omnipotence. This view may sound dumb to a lot of people, but we're
> also talking about a God that is omnipresent, to which your argument
> would go along the lines of "what he can be in China *and*
> America at the same time?! syeah right".
Hang on, maybe it is dumb. Now there's a thought...
> Sure it makes no sense
> but then that's the point of religion assclown,
Okay, I was going to actually argue my case until I read this sentence. Now I won't bother.
> Blank wrote:
> yadda yadda yadda. Christianity falls down.
>
> I'm no great exponent of Christianity but your argument is a little
> weak to put the point mildly.
Hows about this - it wasn't my argument.
> If it is taken as a fact that God is
> omnipotent then he can do anything, which includes making a boulder he
> cannot lift and lifting that boulder.
Which is, of course, impossible. IMPOSSIBLE. Omnipotence is impossible, and you can't argue otherwise.
> Because that is the nature of
> omnipotence. This view may sound dumb to a lot of people, but we're
> also talking about a God that is omnipresent, to which your argument
> would go along the lines of "what he can be in China *and*
> America at the same time?! syeah right".
Hang on, maybe it is dumb. Now there's a thought...
> Sure it makes no sense
> but then that's the point of religion assclown,
Okay, I was going to actually argue my case until I read this sentence. Now I won't bother.
Blank wrote:
> Anyway, God couldn't do it because if he wa omnipotent he would be
> able to push the boulder over, therefore he could never make a boulder
> that he couldn't push over, therefore he cannot be omnipotent.
> Christianity falls down.
What point is there behind this piece of total bullshirt ? What relevance is there to it ?
You seem to be implying that because God doesn't want to waste his time making bigger and bigger boulders then this proves that Christianity falls down.
I really will not miss these imbecillic posts.
> Anyway, God couldn't do it because if he wa omnipotent he would be
> able to push the boulder over, therefore he could never make a boulder
> that he couldn't push over, therefore he cannot be omnipotent.
> Christianity falls down.
What point is there behind this piece of total bullshirt ? What relevance is there to it ?
You seem to be implying that because God doesn't want to waste his time making bigger and bigger boulders then this proves that Christianity falls down.
I really will not miss these imbecillic posts.
I really don't think there is any way to proove that there is no God.
I just feel a huge absence of a God. Which is enough to tell me that I have been wasting myself on a lie. But after 2 months of depression I've come to terms with it.
I just feel a huge absence of a God. Which is enough to tell me that I have been wasting myself on a lie. But after 2 months of depression I've come to terms with it.
Same old tired arguments raging in the forum and the world at large.
God doesn't exist for me because I do not believe.
God exists for Flanders because he does believe.
I am right. So is Flanders.
It's not hard to understand is it? Find a path that works for you and worry about making your life happy having made your own choices. Don't try and convert everyone around you into either religion or agnosticism.
For me, God cannot exist for I choose not to believe, he holds no sway.
And should I ever be sent to a "hell", I do not believe in that either, so what little superstitious sway that notion may hold does not work upon me either.
I believe I am creator and master of my own world and destiny, I cannot entrust my wellbeing to an invisible benefactor.
But hey, I could be wrong.
Then again, I might not be.
I'll find out when I die.
God doesn't exist for me because I do not believe.
God exists for Flanders because he does believe.
I am right. So is Flanders.
It's not hard to understand is it? Find a path that works for you and worry about making your life happy having made your own choices. Don't try and convert everyone around you into either religion or agnosticism.
For me, God cannot exist for I choose not to believe, he holds no sway.
And should I ever be sent to a "hell", I do not believe in that either, so what little superstitious sway that notion may hold does not work upon me either.
I believe I am creator and master of my own world and destiny, I cannot entrust my wellbeing to an invisible benefactor.
But hey, I could be wrong.
Then again, I might not be.
I'll find out when I die.
Page: