Uummm... I was pointing out that humans invented the concept of omnipotent gods relatively recently, that is: for a long time gods weren't omnipotent. Thus it isn't MY choosing a single "scenario". — LuckyR
You seem to be confused with God and the word God. They are not the same. God is the god, and his residence is in the word "God". You are not able to distinguish between the two i.e. God and the word God. They are different concept.
God manifests into the physical space and time whenever it is called by the word God. We know God by the word, but when we make up the sentences with the word God, it is not the same concept. The word God then become a metaphysical entity in the sentence where it instantiates.
Actually, you were the who demonstrated that you don't understand by arguing that you can prove that God exists by typing "g" "o" "d". — night912
I don't know, could the reason for why it's irrelevant is because the "god" in your argument has nothing to do with the Christianity and its god? :chin: — night912
I am not sure what God you are talking about, but if we talk about the Christianity, then omnipotence of God is evidently implied in the Bible describing the creation of the world and humans by the God. God can also allow people to resurrect after their deaths ... etc. It sounds too naive to say that omnipotence of God is recently invented by humans, therefore not omnipotence. It screams a loud contradiction here.
Unless you are talking about a woman you met recently as your God, it is quite reasonable to assume religious Gods are omnipotent
If you decided to take up a religion, then you would be expected to read up on the principles and traditions of the religion. and study the objective definition of God, and be knowledgeable about the God.
Once you take up a religion, then that would be your religion for the rest of your life accepting all the code of conducts, principles and definition of the God
Okay. Now, "what god"? All gods (that is all 10,000 of them). Are you limiting your discussion/understanding to a single god? How quaint. — LuckyR
Several things:
First the overwhelming majority of theists dont "decide to take up a religion" in particular. Rather they are indoctrinated into the religion of their family from early childhood, no requirement to "read up" and study anything. What you're describing are what adult converts tend to do, but they make up a tiny fraction of the religious.
Second, even a simpleton knows that if you ask 10 members of a religion the details of their personal belief system, there will NOT be a universal concensus on codes of conduct, priciples and definitions of the qualities of their god. The beliefs of American Catholics on divorce and birth control are only the most obvious example of this reality. — LuckyR
If you insist going back to the times when there is no written records on the theistic studies, then it is not philosophical topic we would be discussing. It would be then shamanism, totems and superstitions you would be talking about. They are subjects for parapsychology, occultism, esotericism, anthropology or historical discussions at best.
It sounds like a grammatical mistake in the statement. God doesn't like sin, or God doesn't approve sin sounds more intelligible. Sin is opposite to God sounds unintelligible.Sin is opposite to God. — Barkon
God cannot be proven by the unintelligible, groundless and illogical statements.These things can happen, so there is God proven. — Barkon
God is a concept in the bible, and in the bible it says "sin is opposite to God". I'm just putting 2 and 2 together. Nothing unintelligible about it, — Barkon
When it is abstract, it must be also intelligible or logical supporting the abstractness. Being abstract, unintelligible and illogical all at once is not acceptable.1. It doesn't make any less sense it being abstract, must we fear the abstract? — Barkon
The problem here is that you associated pleasure sense with sin, which is nonsense.2. I never said pleasure sense is all negative, I said it has negative associations. — Barkon
One example of greed is not a sufficient reason for all pleasure senses to be defined as sin. Pleasure senses are also vital factor in survival for the bodily and psychological well-being for the biological agents.Pleasure is associated with sin - take greed for example - the want for more of something(some pleasurable source). — Barkon
When you said, "opposite of sin is God", at first glance, it sounds abstract. People would wonder how God could be opposite of sin? But when they think about it further, they immediately would realise that is nonsense, illogical and unintelligible. Opposite of sin could be many different things. No one really would know what you mean by the statement. Defining God is identical with opposite of sin, and saying God is proven sounded absurd.I wouldn't even call God under the meaning I have subjected it to is even abstract at all — Barkon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.