Just to be clear - because I didn't have a clue what any of that meant - you think God can do anything, but he can't do some things. Again: you think God can do ANYTHING and he can't do some things.

Yep. You're not much of a philosopher

The irrational is impotence for god so he can't do it.

So, myself, Descartes and Jesus all think that God can so anything. And that, according to you, makes us nuts and not very good at philosophy.

You think God can do anything and not some things.

I think you don't have a clue about anything.

Well you keep insisting that omnipotence means god can do irrational thing. And you stare in amazement at people when they laugh at that. You are stuck in the mud on this point

So, Gwegowy, you think God - or 'God' - can't do a whole bunch of stuff.

Would someone who can do everything 'God' can do and all the things he can't do, be more or less powerful than 'God'?

What do you think, Gwegowy?

He can do anything, Mr tricks at a bar, but irrational things are nothing

And who is your "we"? Islam? I imagine you living in Syria as a disreputed apologist for Islam, trying to win people with unwise arguments

So he can do anything. But not some things?

Being irrational is a thing. You are being irrational. You think God can do anything, but not do the irrational things you do?

Destroying oneself is a thing. You think God can do anything, but he can't destroy himself?

You understand what a contradiction is, yes? (No, clearly).

No. For the divine the irrational is nothing

Okaaaay. There's an old guy in my local who says - well, slurs - things like that. He looks like the Shy Peasant by Ilya Repin. That's how I imagine you, given you have told me how you imagine me (quite wrong btw).

No idea what that is.

Arguments for omnipotence can get ridiculous. The question 'can God destroy Himself' was to me unanswerable until I realized that if God destroys Himself he would not be God, since God is eternal.

Of course there is a sort of reductionist argument that answers the omnipotence problem:

Simply put it means saying yes to every question about God.
Can God destroy Himself Yes
Can God destroy Himself and still exist? Yes
Can God destroy Himself and still exist but not exist? Yes
Can God exist and not exist? Yes.
Can God be eternal and die? Yes

Take your pick. In any case I am discussing a set of writings fixed in time and space, about which a limited number of rational statements are possible.

, so G is a simpleton, simpler than a raindrop. :)
Well, minds are at least complex enough to express things like ...

If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't. — George E Pugh (1977), accredited to Emerson M Pugh (1938)

I have a feeling that various worshipers aren't on board with their ehh friend being so simple.
Then again, it seems these G-ideas are free for the taking, contradictions included, and regardless that G never shows and isn't shown.

Of course there is a sort of reductionist argument that answers the omnipotence problem:

Simply put it means saying yes to every question about God.
Can God destroy Himself Yes
Can God destroy Himself and still exist? Yes
Can God destroy Himself and still exist but not exist? Yes
Can God exist and not exist? Yes.
Can God be eternal and die? Yes

Take your pick. In any case I am discussing a set of writings fixed in time and space, about which a limited number of rational statements are possible. — FreeEmotion

I do not really follow your point. What you say is quite right - God, being omnipotent, can do anything and so to any question "can God do..." the answer is an unambiguous 'yes'. Well, there we go. That's quite right.

And so can God make it the case that everything in the bible is true? Yes. No problem. Can it be true that God made the animals before man, and man before the animals? Yes, because God can do anything. It is no condition on God being able to do a thing that we be able to understand how.

Can God destroy himself? Of course he can. And note, that is compatible with him existing eternally. So you have reasoned fallaciously in concluding that God cannot destroy himself becasue he exists eternally. To exist eternally, you just need to exist forever. That's consistent with having the ability not to exist at any point. (Note too that existing eternally is not an essential feature of God. Omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are. Existing eternally is not, or at least I cannot see why it would be).

The mistake many theists make is to confuse existing eternally with existing 'of necessity'. God does not exist of necessity (for if he did, then there would be something - some weird existential glue - holding him in existence, and that's incompatible with his being all powerful. To put it another way, there would be something beyond God, something outside God's control that determines his continued existence). But existing eternally and existing of necessity are not the same. God exists eternally, but he does not exist of necessity.

Another mistake is to confuse existing with certainty, and existing of necessity. God exists with certainty. But he does not exist of necessity.

In a way, the issues you're grappling with - apparent internal inconsistencies in the bible and supposed inconsistencies with science (there are none, but as I have said, scientific claims come with an implicit 'other things being equal' clause which is not going to be satisfied if the bible is true) - are red herrings.

The big issues are whether God exists and whether the bible is a work of God's. If God exists and the bible is a work of his, then there are no problems at all - there can't be, for God can do anything.

You are confusing the simplicity of a thing with the complexity of its states. Thoughts are states of mind. They can be as complex as you like. That won't make the thing that has them complex.

Minds - all minds, not just God's - are simples. That is, they have no parts. That's why the idea of a half a mind makes no sense.

That does not mean that God is a simpleton. Consider a lump of ice and now consider that lump of ice transformed into a very complex sculpture. Well, as a stuff it is no different to before - it is a complex of hydrogen and oxygen molecules, or whatever. But now it has an extremely complex shape.

Likewise, the simplicity of a mind does not entail that teh mind will be in simple states. There is no upper limit to how complex the thoughts of a simple mind can be. The whole external world could exist as the complex thought of a simple mind. And probably does, if Berkeley is correct.

There are degrees of irrationality when it comes to faith and the Bible. Most theologians would make the claim that there is a certain method to it, the Bible stories are not jumbled mess that a mad person would write, there are some very cogent, intelligent passages, there is poetry, there is history, and there is prophecy. So there are parts where God did not do anything - in the Bible story, for example, in the book of Esther the word 'God' does not appear.

The problem occurs with the 'miraculous' or 'supernatural' parts of the Bible. How do we approach this? I would say the Creation story is broadly self consistent, except for some parts, such as the creation of the sun after the creation of light.

Is it possible to create the sun before the creation of light? Then the sun would be light-less. As I thought about this, is there a situation where light exists without the sun? Then evening came, and as the sun went down, there was still light, but no sun visible. Diffuse light, and not from the sun, but from the sun 8 minutes ago, existing independently in the atmosphere through diffusion.

There is a difference between a conflict between the Biblical account and scientific theory and between the Biblical story and rationality. This is exactly what I am trying to draw out. I feel that there is a large audience that will accept this, it being a numbers game after all, in a sort of truth by vote world.

I am not sure I follow. To be irrational is not to follow Reason.

However, one is not failing to follow Reason if one reasons that as God can do anything, there are no necessary connections between anything. One is following reason - one is being rational. It is rational to think that if there exists a person who can do anything, then nothing that exists exists of necessity (for a person who can do anything can destroy anything and everything at any moment)' and likewise to think that there are no necessary connections between things. Nothing 'has' to produce light and light can exist by itself.

If there is a being who can do anything, then nothing 'has' to be the case. There's what is the case and what is not the case. But there is no such thing as what 'has' to be the case.

That is not an irrational belief, but the opposite. It is the rational implication of there being a person who can do anything.

If one has independent reason to think the bible is the creation of that person, and in that book this person says that they created light before the sun or whatever, then there is no reason to think that this was not what they did.

And if the book says that the person in question - God - created X before Y, and Y before X, then once more it is rational to think that this is what happened, for the person who has said this is the one person capable of doing anything at all.

So, it seems to me that insofar as one thinks there are problems here - problems reconciling the bible account of things with this or that received view about how things are or how things have come to be - one is suffering from a rational failure: a failure to appreciate what omnipotence involves.

God, unlike us, is not a prisoner of Reason. God is Reason and so God can do anything, including violating the laws of Reason (for they're his laws). Appreciating this - properly appreciating it - means appreciating that what would be a problem if premised of anyone else, is not a problem when premised of God.

Take the Babylonian creation story for example:

https://www.creationmyths.org/enumaelish-babylonian-creation/enumaelish-babylonian-creation-2.htm

Is it self-consistent? Well, as far as there are no contradictory statements within the text, and the original story tellers would have known this, it is self- consistent. My position is somewhat like a person who believes in the Babylonian myth today. A Babylonian Creationist!

So what would I say to this Babylonian Creationist? Your story is self-consistent. You believe in it. Are there any claims of the personalities acting throughout history? Are there any further revelations? And if so, will dismissing the Creation story as merely a story affect your faith? These are the questions to answer. The Babylonian myth will conflict with science, but there will be those who try to harmonize it, which is not necessary.

I feel that there is a large audience that will accept this, it being a numbers game after all, in a sort of truth by vote world. — FreeEmotion

Christians believe everyone is a bad person without Jesus. But maybe everyone is bad and turn to religion in order to feel better. Majority does not rule in philosophy and how it relates to religion. This forum, I believe, does not favor the majority in the debates that occur here. It is really easy to say "I like the Bible, it sounds so true" but every religion has members who feel the same about their books. See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnJvuXpU6SU

One man's patterns are another persons nonsense. Why can't Christians just discuss this stuff with themselves? Why do they try to sell it to other people? If you want to evangelize why not talk only about your relationship with Jesus? You're going down the apologetic path yourself.

I still do not follow you. There's what's true, and there's what's false.

I am assuming that you think the bible is the word of God and thus that its creation story is the true one (and that all others are false).

Well, that creation story is consistent with science, first off. For scientific claims are always attended with an 'other things being equal' clause that is not met if God exists and created the universe in the manner outlined in the bible. (So, scientific discoveries imply that the world is 4.55 billion years old 'other things being equal' - well, if the bible story is correct, then the world is actually 4-6,000 years old. That doesn't contradict the science, precisely becasue other things are not equal in this case).

Perhaps that creation story contains apparent contradictions, such as claiming that X was created before Y, and then that Y was created before X.

That would seem to be inconsistent with Reason, not science. Until, that is, one remembers that this is God we're talking about, and God isn't bound by the laws of Reason, for God is Reason and can do anything.

God can't be Reason if he can ACT a contradiction.

God is Reason and so God can do anything. It's that way around. In virtue of being Reason, God can violate the law of non-contradiction, for it is his law and thus does not bind him. That does not mean he does violate the law of non-contradiction. It does not mean the law is false (this is something you and Banno seem unable to grasp - being 'able' to do something does not mean you're doing it).
But anyway, you're more of a pronouncer than an arguer, so there's not much point in me explaining any further is there?

Reason can't perform a contradiction. That's against its nature

Okaaay Gwegowy.

You're a common idiot dude. I'm 35, I'm not a kid. You wouldn't have a chance first of all. And you say God is a finite mind with infinite power and thoughts. How does that lopsided picture work in your "mind"? And then you say this mind is Reason but can perform contradictions. So once again a guy or girl that doesn't give his name out is laughed off stage. Take a bow as you leave

You've managed to get to 35 with reasoning and comprehension skills like those? Blimey! You must be very lucky.
God can do anything. Thus God can change the laws of logic. Why? Because he can do anything.

One man's patterns are another persons nonsense. Why can't Christians just discuss this stuff with themselves? Why do they try to sell it to other people? If you want to evangelize why not talk only about your relationship with Jesus? You're going down the apologetic path yourself. — Gregory

There are many reasons Christians do not just discuss among themselves, although they argue among themselves as well. Some Christians believe that all believers, not just preachers and evangelists have a duty to try to convert other people at every opportunity. That is not what my purpose is here. My purpose is to get some views on the rationality of the Biblical story.

What would really upset theologians is being told they are irrational. They are theologians after all. I think Christians also would not like being called stupid or irrational. So there are two choices, either admit that Christianity is "foolishness to the Greeks" and move on to something else, or try to make some rational statements about all of it that people of all faiths can accept and respect. Is this possible, and in what areas?

The entire problem is that the current aim of scientific enterprise is to seek to remove God from all causes and this is a stand a Christian cannot take. I think from the Christian point of view, the Christian tells people how to go to heaven and the scientist tells people not how the heavens go, but how to go to hell by denying the existence of God.

“How to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.”
Posted on August 10, 2009 by thegodguy
The above quote was made by a Catholic Cardinal to soften the blow of new scientific evidence about the cosmos coming from observations being made with the telescope (Copernican theory). Science did one thing. Religion did another. So there was no conflict.

I think we are discussing the subset of views where God can do anything but does not break the laws of self - contradiction, we can do that.

What about the sin of piety?