Omnipotence Paradox | Chris-AL | The Atheist Experience 877

[@TheTruthKiwi]

It's fine to argue gods omnipotence and whether he actually is all the "omni's" without logical paradoxes but there's the small issue of whether he even exists at all to overcome first.

[@RickyisSwan]

In order to be omnipotent, first you have to exist.

[@petermirtitsch1235]

Technically, a truly omnipotent being could exist and not exist at the same time.

[@RickyisSwan]

@@petermirtitsch1235 . I heard that it means you should be able to draw a square circle.

[@martinsoukup562]

@@RickyisSwan sure but how is that relevant to the discussion about hypothetical omnipotence?

[@christiananderson4909]

@@petermirtitsch1235 I don't understand how you could accept something like that, unless you were willing to throw out the fundamental definitions of the words you're using to describe this entity in the first place. . .

[@RickyisSwan]

@@martinsoukup562 that was one definition I read of omnipotent.

[@Hodmindod]

I don’t see how today’s time is any different from all the other times in history when people invented gods. Today’s current gods are just evolved versions of the same thing people have always done, they just got better at making the gods in such a way that it can’t be proven or disproven.

[@RickyisSwan]

Impotent is more applicable to this god. Couldn’t even create his son the normal way.

[@christiananderson4909]

Nice.

[@RickyisSwan]

@@christiananderson4909 👍

[@ajclements4627]

God loses a wrestling match with Jacob even though God strikes Jacob in his testicles. Gen 32:24-30 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. Judges 1:19 Can’t win a wrestling match, and apparently iron is his kryptonite. Pretty damn sad excuse for a divine being.

[@christiananderson4909]

@@ajclements4627 Okay, yeah sure, but look at the trees, man. . .

[@martinsoukup562]

How do you know God couldn't do it?

[@brucebaker810]

Omnipotence Paradox: Jesus, looking in the mirror, saying "My dad could beat up your dad".

[@scambammer6102]

why would god be limited by human logic?

[@brucebaker810]

@@scambammer6102 ...or need a starship?

[@frankleeseaux]

@@scambammer6102 What makes you think that a God could violate logic? The only place I can imagine you are getting such a notion from is if you think the laws of logic are prescriptive rather than descriptive. Logic is so useful because it is inviolable. The moment even a God can violate logic, all bets are off and knowledge becomes impossible, including whether or not a God was able to violate that which would no longer exist at that point.

[@martinsoukup562]

@@frankleeseaux " What makes you think that a God could violate logic?" Because from what we know there is a possibility that logic can be violated. And who else but God should be able to do it then.

[@saucegodxx]

@@martinsoukup562 ok cool now prove a god exist

[@Elaphe472]

I think the main ingredients to believe in god has to do with the process of internalization (adopting others beliefs on a subconsciouss level when growing up as a child), ignorance, simplemindedness, or a combo.

[@martinsoukup562]

Or it doesn't have to do with anything with those.

[@Elaphe472]

@John Wood During indoctrination the person internalizes the belief.

[@scambammer6102]

@@Elaphe472 there's lots of reasons to believe in religion. unfortunately validity isn't one of them.

[@mykehog6646]

@@martinsoukup562 lol..sooking for jeebus..lol

[@martinsoukup562]

@@mykehog6646 ?

[@axilmar254]

Infinitely existing god paradox: if god exists for ever, then he has to wait for ever to decide to create this universe.

[@martinsoukup562]

That would be if God would not be outside of time as well.

[@anonymouszebra1239]

@@martinsoukup562 you can say the words “outside of time” but I don’t think it actually means anything, it’s a self-contradictory concept. If we could ever know about anything it would have to be included IN time. For something to EXIST it must BE in a PLACE at A TIME. Those are necessary parts of existence. For something to ‘exist outside of time’ is nonsensical because existence is defined as temporal. As a side note, you know what else could he said to exist ‘outside of time’? *things that exist for 0 seconds. Things that don’t exist AT ALL*

[@axilmar254]

@@martinsoukup562 before creation -> creation -> after creation there you have it, time flow for God.

[@martinsoukup562]

@@axilmar254 ok?

[@martinsoukup562]

@Terrence Bullock why can't I have it both ways? Why can't God be both in and out based on what God wants?

[@ramptonarsecandle]

I like this quote; “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus 341BCE-270BCE

[@martinsoukup562]

Did you try to find an answer to that?

[@ramptonarsecandle]

@@martinsoukup562 Yup, there is no god. Pretty obvious really. An omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being cannot exist along with suffering and evil ergo there is no god, yours or anybody else's.

[@ringo666]

@@martinsoukup562 the answer is contained in the statement. This lists four conditions in which any god could dwell. It also points out a base condition that god. There really is no better disqualifier for a god concept that I've ever encountered. Either a god can or cannot prevent evil, and this same god is either willing or unwilling to prevent evil. There can be no other condition under these demands on reality that a god could exist. So consider your bait snatched off the hook.

[@ramptonarsecandle]

@@walnutoil100 Crass question. Answer this; If all religions were suddenly proven wrong all at once, would you personally believe it to be true that now it is OK to rape, or to steal, or to murder? Is the only thing keeping you from doing these things the fear of a god? I think you'll then have your answer.

[@walnutoil100]

@@ramptonarsecandle Crass question.-?? What? Avoiding the question. "Answer this;" - Shifting the burden. Please answer - How does the atheist differentiate evil from good objectively?

[@henrikrolfsen584]

If the "God" knows the future, then he himself is not a free agent. There can be no "Judgement Day" if the "God" has already arranged everything to play out as intended!

[@StarFinderWebb]

If God was Q from star trek. And I mean 100% the exact Q I'd worship that God. Lol

[@ajclements4627]

IDK, I always thought Trelane from TOS was more of a prototype Q. I also liked Quinn, the Q from Voyager myself. But Q, from NG, seems like he’d be a fun guy to hang out with.

[@pelgrim8640]

@@ajclements4627 Q can do anything, so what of Trelane is actually Q?

[@ajclements4627]

@@pelgrim8640 That’s why I was saying he may have been the prototype for Q before the actual character was created, and could be retconned to be a Q at some point. Having said that, I’m not getting my hopes up that Q’s appearance in S2 of Picard will be anywhere close to his character as we’ve seen him in NG, VOY and even DS9. John de Lancie has even speculated that Trelane may have been the basis for the character of Q. De Lancie pointed out, "The character of Trelane has a lot of characteristics that are very much like Q." In the Peter David novel Q-Squared, Trelane is considered to be a member of the continuum as well.

[@fredbmurphy]

"Skin of Evil" episode better defines Yahweh, as the creature, the scapegoat, gets to rid the gods of what is needed to define their goodness in the first place. Omnipotence: with a contradictory nature to Itself? Omniscient: creates a reality where there are those that are condemned automatically? Knows what It is always going to do; free will? Omnibelevilence: can't even reconcile natural suffering because morality doesn't even play a role in it? But yeah, Q was really f..king cool!

[@pelgrim8640]

@Jimmy Kirk Funny that you mention that dictator. Christians worship a celestial Kim Jong-Un, one who committed genocide, condoned slavery, rape, torture and doles out punishment of infinite duration, at least the North Korean regime cannot do that.

[@charlesatty]

What is batmans favorite beer? I believe he likes dark beer cause I do.

[@DarkAlkaiser]

I think he likes that because he is the night and it's dark

[@kenbob1071]

I can guess what a "schwazel" is, but this is a family show.

[@brent8183]

You're fuckin goddamn right it is.

[@lutkedog1]

I got mine stuck in my zipper in kindergarten

[@bluceree7312]

Two jokes for the price of one. Good value comedy, this.

[@quantumrobin4627]

The pen would always fall but it would fall slightly different each time, the uncertainty principle guarantees that.

[@heavymeddle28]

You can tell that people don't have much to do these days when trolls in great numbers are roaming around here.

[@heavymeddle28]

@Jebus Hypocristos yea. Sometimes it's fun with a troll but when they're just here to piss people of and change accounts like normal people change underwear, then they're just frustrating. I just ignore them. They pop up with a new account anyway. If I see an account less than 1 month old pecking out nonsense then I ignore them. Much like small kids, if you pay them no attention they'll go away

[@joecoolioness6399]

"we have reduced spending" to a politician trying to buy your vote, means they reduced the amount of the increase they were going to impose.

[@bluceree7312]

Just a note, Quantum does not mean randomness.

[@cmvamerica9011]

The simulation theory is the simplest explanation that explains all the data.

[@SpaceLordof75]

I don’t think the paradox of the stone is necessarily an illogical task, as AntiCitizenX’s videos state: Can a pile of stones be made? Definitely. Can a pile of stones be made too large for a being to lift it? Definitely.

[@theTranscendentOnes]

The point missed you by a mile. It's not about whether you can do it is illogical or not. It's about if you answer "yes" to "Can a pile of stones be made too large for God to lift" then he isn't all-powerful.

[@SpaceLordof75]

I wasn’t expecting a debate about the size and number of stones. Sorry for the confusion. I’m not clear on why the number of stones could possibly make a difference.

[@ari1234a]

@@SpaceLordof75 Oh oh, i have another one, it`s old and i do not claim to inventing it i think it was Wayne Gretsky but anyhooo, how many angels can god make to dance on the head of a pin ?

[@TheEyez187]

Come back to this, after a couple of yr hiatus, and I am and am not surprised it's still going. I mean there's plenty of meat for the grinder, but I could imagine the butcher having to stop to save his/her insanity. For Atheists you have the patience of saints!. At no point in our future will we know everything about the universe. Such an amount of knowledge in our brains would cause them to physically implode to a black hole!

[@qwadratix]

Why do theists even TRY to jump through hoops on this one? It's just so absurd. Clearly, the people who invented the religion were not sophisticated enough to see the problem with giving their god 'superpowers' in an attempt to outdo all the other regional gods with their 'ordinary' type god-powers. Being able to throw bolts of lightning and shove the sun around weren't good enough. THEIR god had to have EVERYTHING, in spades. Theists make me want to cry. It's not even funny.

[@cmvamerica9011]

The coffee cup doesn’t believe it knows everything.

[@evolutionaryadvantage]

I hate it when theists from all religions talk about their god like he actually exists. They behave as though they have seen him, talked to him out loud, knows what their god wants, knows what he does and does not like, knows how he feels about certain subjects and then they claim they have relationship with him. I just can’t and will never understand it.

[@albaniahenry-franklin2829]

Same here!

[@CFifth]

Got a Big Ol' shawzel

[@rationalist8805]

Not Phoenix? Wikipedia "Phenix City is a city in Lee and Russell counties in the U.S. state of Alabama, and the county seat of Russell County. As of the 2010 census, the population of the city was 32,822"

[@houstandy1009]

I don’t think omnipotence is a paradox. Why would you expect an omnipotent being to be able to do the logically impossible. Surely omnipotence would be the ability to do anything that is logically possible. To expect omnipotence to break the law of none contradiction seems a bit silly.

[@randolphphillips3104]

The caller doesn't seem to know what a theory actually is. Holographic Universe is an hypothesis based on a solution found to certain equations. Making it into an hypothesis is how they go about trying to determine how to test and possibly falsify it. As to omniscience, and his question of "if we knew everything there is to know...", this is not possible in a physical universe. To know of every fundamental particle, you would need that many data points, so basically every fundamental particle in the universe would need to be a bit of storage. Now, add to that the state of each of them, which would be, best case minimum, another full universe of data points. It would take more matter and energy than is in the universe to store all the information about just the existence and state everything in the universe. You also would need information that is not material, like forces and how they interact, and enough processing left over to increment everything to predict the future. This has been shown in math and data science for a very long time now.

[@martinsoukup562]

And how doesn't he know what theory actually is?

[@randolphphillips3104]

@@martinsoukup562 Theory is an hypothesis that has been tested and is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Hypothesis is an untested idea and predictions that could be used to falsify it. It may or may not have supporting evidence, but it does not have enough to be a preponderance and become generally accepted. Holographic Universe is just an elegant mathematical model, and may be untestable.

[@martinsoukup562]

@@randolphphillips3104 that's not true. It seems that person knows what theory is

[@martinsoukup562]

@@blarglemantheskeptic "you are wrong. Very wrong. You are doing what EVERY believer does when wanting to downplay the EXTRAORDINARY amounts of evidence supporting evolution - they equivocate the meaning of the word "theory" and declare: "it's just a theory!" You stated I'm wrong without providing evidence for why I'm wrong. I think you don't know the meaning of theory.

[@scurvy77777]

Matt does have the biggest schwazel; I've seen it.

[@marc-antoinecusson3119]

That kinda sound... ya know xD

[@sknnyd2676]

Saying that the omnipotence paradox doesnt apply to god because he can only do anything within the bounds of what is logically possible STILL doesnt work because the same christian believes that god created and thus predates logic itself. Thus there was a time when god wasnt bound by logic because he hadnt yet invented it. God also couldnt have thought up logic or anything else he supposedly designed if he is omniscient because he already wouldve known it. God cant design something if he already has future knowledge of that things design. At that point he is just copying information he already knows. Where did it come from since it couldnt come from god? So even when you try to limit god to logic, you still reach a point where logic itself breaks down. All theists can do is make excuses that they havent really thought out.

[@eddyyammine9136]

I assumed a shwazel was Matt's .... 🥕

[@vincenzoguandolo8641]

I don’t believe in God, but this is not a great objection to a God, mainly because, like Matt said, the definition of omnipotence is now understood by Christian theologians to mean the ability to actualize any potential. So creating a square triangle, or a married bachelor, or a burrito so hot he can’t eat are all outside the realm of potential, and are therefore tangential, as they do not pertain to possible problems with the idea of omnipotence as defined above.

[@johnd.shultz7423]

How can a rather limited human mind completely connect to, and thusly "know"an omniscient mind supposedly far beyond its capacities,all one ends up with is an endless plethora of verbal speculations and a lot of what-if- isms...

[@Terrencetulani]

The fact that an omniscient mind would be so interested in human minds down to who they sleep with is equally startling dont you think?

[@johnd.shultz7423]

@@Terrencetulani Obviously an omnisciently petty mind we are dealing with here(also Bored...)

[@martinsoukup562]

@@johnd.shultz7423 "Obviously an omnisciently petty mind we are dealing with here(also Bored...)" Why is it obvious?

[@dannyparkman9583]

Following this caller was difficult. His cadence was sooooo slow

[@bluceree7312]

7:14 Laplace's Demon.

[@RF590KG84]

Omnipotence is a silly term, but it's relative from the perspective of the observer. It doesn't mean the ability to do things that aren't logically possible. Atheists however aren't afraid to invoke logical impossibilities when it suits them, such as magical appearance of life and the universe, their standard gap filler. Atheism is the definition of ignorance and incredulity: "We don't know what the answer is and we don't have one to put forward as an alternative, but we don't believe yours".

[@johngaunt2806]

Thats because there are some questions where the only honest answer is 'we don't know'. Atheists don't claim to know the unknown, they follow the evidence. Its zealots who claim to have absolute perfect knowledge of the unknown, despite not having a shred of evidence for their fairy tale.

[@RF590KG84]

@@johngaunt2806 I agree that if you don't know for sure then that is the only honest answer to give. However you've just betrayed your own bias by saying there is no evidence for God, and that God is a fairytale, which is the same as saying you DO KNOW that there definitely is no God (because in this context your description of a "fairytale" means something that definitely doesn't exist in reality). Here's the thing though, God is a concept that explains the evidence, life and the universe, which no one doubts exist. If you say there is no evidence for God, you are therefore telling us you have some alternative explanation for life and the universe, but you've also just told us you don't know what it is. Very mixed, inconsistent, and illogical arguments. So the question remains as to just who really believes in fairytales. So feel free to try again to present some kind of rational argument. By the way don't feel too bad, I haven't heard a single rational argument against the concept of God from any atheist, including the likes of Dawkins and Hawking, so you're in excellent company.

[@MasterSpade]

@@RF590KG84 -- You said "God is a concept that explains the evidence, life and the universe". That is a CLAIM. Can you PROVE that Claim? Because without Proving your claim that a specific god is the "concept that explains the evidence, life and the universe", then it is nothing more than the God of the Gaps. Making Claims is easy. PROVING those claims is a different story. Because there have been thousands of CLAIMED 'gods', but ZERO have been proven. That is why all religions/gods are dependent on religious faith, which is nothing more than the politically correct way of calling what it truly is = BLIND Faith. So Prove your specific 'god'. If you cannot, then your Claimed 'god' is no different than the other gods that you do not believe in. Pay special attention to the 2nd sentence = "I contend we are both Atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts

[@johngaunt2806]

@@RF590KG84 Not even remotely true. God is a fairy tale, a statement I can make without any difficulty based on the fact that there is NO positive, verifiable evidence for any god's existence. Period, end of discussion. If you disagree, then post a single shred, just ONE example of positive, verifiable evidence that ANY god exists. Well? Since you cannot, then god falls into the exact same category as fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus. Your fairy tale god has NO explanatory power. It does NOT explain "evidence, life and the universe", at all. If you disagree, then please tell us all exactly how God did any of that. Please describe his powers, and how they overcame the laws of physics. Please describe his nature, and how scientifically, intellect can exist without a physical manifestation. You cannot, of course, because god has no explanatory power. It is exactly the same as saying 'it was magic', while skipping the step of providing any demonstration magic exists or is possible. God in that case has the exact same explanatory power as 'universe creating pixies'. Universe creating pixies explain life and the universe, so why don't you accept them as reality? Oh and this is all just discussing an undefined god. Its worth noting that for DEFINED Gods, like the god of the bible, not only is there NO evidence they exists, but there is a great deal of evidence that they DO NOT exist. As to how the universe came to be, we have about three excellent EVIDENCE based theories, but the real answer is 'we don't yet know'. But you try and pretend that's a bad thing. It5 is, in fact the ONLY honest answer. Let me put it another way. Lets place ourselves 600 years ago in Denmark. Lightning flashes. I say, Obviously Thor did it. How can you disagree? After all, Thor has perfect explanatory power on the lightning and thunder, and you cannot provide a scientific alternative. Does that mean lightning is caused by Thor? Inserting fairy tales into legitimate scientific questions is called the 'god of the gaps' fallacy,. and it is laughable nonsense.

[@RF590KG84]

@@johngaunt2806 If God is a fairytale concept then you are making an absolute assertion that no such being exists, and you have the burden of proof. To say there is no evidence is to say that God is not the explanation for life and the universe, and therefore that everything that exists is not evidence for God. To make that absolute statement you need to either show logically how that can't be the case (you';ve failed) OR provide a more compelling alternative (double fail). The best you can honestly say is that you BELIEVE there is no God. The evidence exists. God is one explanation for it. God explains why we have order and complexity, why process exists, that is what creative intelligence does. The alternative put forward by the likes of Hawking that the universe doesn't need a cause is a true example of an explanation with no explanatory power; it just popped into existence. Now that is belief in true magic. God is belief in engineering, which is so different from magic and fairytales that its amazing atheists use those terms to deride the concept, but sarcasm and ridicule is all they have left in the absence of a logical argument.

[@advorak8529]

You cannot know the position and speed and direction of movement of any particle beyond Heisenberg’a uncertainty principle. Even if you can, radioactive decay is totally random on the level of a single atom, as far as we can tell; only in huge numbers they can be handled statistically. I am pretty sure that they are not the only random thing in the universe, the source of Hawking radiation is likely totally random events, too.[1] So, no, we cannot know everything and even if, we cannot predict perfectly. [1] particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneous form, “borrowing” energy (also see tunnelling for a somewhat similar thing) and when they, attracted to each other, join again, the borrowed energy is returned. However, should one of them be captured by a black hole and the other not, they become “real” and dies miso be paid (the black hole loses energy (which also is mass, e=mc^2)) and the leftover particle is radiation … destruction by them meeting again! particle-antiparticle pairs in the universe, very likely again at random - but if one partner would be captured by a black hole, the other becomes “permanent” and is radiation.

[@ajclements4627]

When asked by Time magazine in 1994, "How do the Heisenberg compensators in the transporters work?" Michael Okuda replied, "They work just fine, thank you."

[@ivannenadovic9465]

I just wanna know what you guys think but if the Bible says that god could do anything and that god is all powerful don't you think that they mean omnipotent then?

[@tetsujin_144]

Not necessarily. It could be hyperbole. "Superman can save that plane, Superman can do anything!" Superman is crazy-powerful in some versions of the story, but he's not omnipotent. (and people who say "Superman can do anything" may be quite aware of that.)

[@petermirtitsch1235]

"The Lord omnipotent in heaven reigneth"... isn't that in Revelation? I seem to remember that.

[@locutusdborg126]

Well, people a couple hundred or more years ago would have thought omnipotence meant as fast as a cat, as strong as the strongest man, etc. In other words, they could not even conceive of the potential power in the universe, like black holes, we understand at this time.

[@scambammer6102]

Revelation 19:6. The Bible does say god is omnipotent, although the precise language depends on translation.

[@sunsetpalms1923]

I could never understand if god knows everything, why do people pray?

[@t800fantasm2]

@Jim Jones "God finished creation before he started it." Prove your nonsense...

[@williamtarry4405]

Christians pray in an effort to try and get god to do something they want done for them.

[@t800fantasm2]

Christians believe in an all powerful all knowing god with a plan. Then they pray to tell it they know better...

[@t800fantasm2]

@Jim Jones The problem with all that is you still cannot prove a god, so if there's no god, all of your preaching is simply your delusions....

[@t800fantasm2]

@Jim Jones "Book of Life that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered" Yup those sheep herders got a book with hundreds of references to sheep in a book from their god... Amazing coincidence eh? Strangely full of sheep related ideas. Flocks, Lambs, Shepherds, Sheep and so on with pretty much everything related to sheep short of recipe for mint sauce... Regardless of your desperation, God is still unproven.

[@Wix_Mitwirth]

I wish psychohistory was a thing.

[@heavymeddle28]

Maybe, just maybe a young aspiring psychotherapist is watching this and tomorrow it will be😊

[@ringo666]

@@heavymeddle28 except psychohistory was invented by mathematicians, led by one Hari Seldon.

[@tetsujin_144]

psycho history? Qu'est-ce que c'est

[@Wix_Mitwirth]

@@tetsujin_144 it's a fictional way to predict the future using science that was invented by Isaac Asimov. ...also a way to control people's decisions telepathically, invented by same, but that's silly.

[@heavymeddle28]

@@ringo666 I had no idea. Never even heard about it before

[@Frames_debates]

I won't worship an illogical deity

[@Bozo_Weirdo]

Then stop bringing praise to yourself and imagining yourself to be in control. The omnipotence paradox creates illogic in the same way that “this sentence is a lie” creates illogic. Paradoxes are classically used poetically to bring attention to the truth, but they can also be used by dogmatists to intentionally distort the truth. The ones attempting to distort truth are the true liars (paradox pun intended).

[@frankleeseaux]

If a God is omniscient (all knowing), it is still possible for people to have choices, because God's omniscience does not confer that knowledge to mankind. However, the moment we decide a God also has a perfect, and inviolable plan, then man no longer has free will, and cannot make choices. Even then, it would appear to Man that he is both capable of making choices, and having done so. But, God, on the other hand, thanks both to his foreknowledge, and his perfect and inviolable plan. Would not be able to make any choices, or have any sense of freewill.

[@ajclements4627]

The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn’t in God’s Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn’t it seem a little arrogant? It’s a Divine Plan. What’s the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and F up Your Plan? And here’s something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren’t answered. What do you say? “Well, it’s God’s will.” “Thy Will Be Done.” Fine, but if it’s God’s will, and He’s going to do what He wants to anyway, why the F bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn’t you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It’s all very confusing. -George Carlin

[@Diviance]

Well, no, if anything truly omniscient exists then free will itself can't. At all. Even the being itself that has the omniscience wouldn't have it. It is a mutually exclusive thing.

[@frankleeseaux]

@@Diviance You kinda fucked yourself with that one. I set myself up, perfectly, and purposely. I made a claim. A very strong, powerful claim. And, I knew, at the time, that it put me in the position of having to defend my claim and demonstrate its veracity. Moreover, I was perfectly willing and ready to do it. But, instead of either thinking about it long enough, and deeply enough to understand why I would have said those things, and why it might seem that way to me, or else expecting me to defend my claim, you made a counter claim, which you, now get to defend. Now that we've come this far, I'll go ahead and let you know that I am still, perfectly willing to defend my claim, but not till after you've defended yours, and formally challenged mine. A formal challenge would entail you asking me to defend some particular aspect of my aim that you believe is where I went wrong. So, here's my challenge to you: How would me knowing your future in excruciating detail, prevent you from believing and even expressing freewill, if I never reveal to you what your future will be?

[@pelgrim8640]

@@frankleeseaux You miss an important part. Your example only considers omniscience. There is also omnipotence and being the creator. A better analogy would be: you having not only knowledge of Diviances' future, but also having created Diviance, including that future, in this particular version of Diviance. So no, the biblical God does not allow free will.

[@martinsoukup562]

"If a God is omniscient (all knowing), it is still possible for people to have choices, because God's omniscience does not confer that knowledge to mankind" knowing the outcome does not negate your free will. It just means the X is accounted for already. "However, the moment we decide a God also has a perfect, and inviolable plan, then man no longer has free will, and cannot make choices.|" That is incorrect. What if the plan is perfectly fit for the existence of the free will. Free will doesn't mean chaos. It can be predicted and accounted for. So the perfect plan is counting on the existence of free will.

[@deadlychickenxop]

if God is all powerful, and all knowing why does he allow suffering in children like bone cancer ? Is God all powerful and all knowing but not benevolent ? or is God all knowing and benevolent but not all powerful ? or is 'God all powerful and benevolent but not all knowing ? it seems impossible for a God of a world that has bone cancer in babies and children, or creatures thats sole purpose is to burrow into the eyes of hosts causing pain suffing and blindness as its own survival method to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient THATS the real paradox, its impossible for a God of this world to be these things with the pointless unjustified suffering that exists.

[@martinsoukup562]

This is a trilemma and it does have many possible solutions. Did you try t look for them or did you just learn about this trillema and decided it is impossible for a god to exist? Not to mention you don't know if the suffering is pointless and unjustified.

[@deadlychickenxop]

@@martinsoukup562 They are children and babies, their is nothing that they can have done to justify this as some sort of punishment. You say there are many possible answers, give me a single one then. You cannot because its impossible to justify bone cancer in babies ...

[@martinsoukup562]

@@deadlychickenxop who says it's punishment?

[@TheBurningManLives]

​@martinsoukup562 Hey, 3 years late here, what the fuck do mean it's not punishment? Do you believe this stuff is good?

[@DarkAlkaiser]

You could make up a god that didn't obey logic, but claiming that god is also the source of logic would be very very stupid. Also, if he can break logic, the universe isn't true and we would never be able to know he exists because it's literally nonsense XD far more likely that god idea is just bad.

[@somethingyousaid5059]

As long as he could always create a rock of any finite weight, and as long as his (lifting) strength was always potentially infinite, God necessarily could not create a rock that was so heavy that he could not lift it.

[@tetsujin_144]

So what you're saying is god can't create a rock of infinite weight... So, not omnipotent.

[@somethingyousaid5059]

If your criterion for God's omnipotence is that he wouldn't be limited in relation to what was logically impossible then yeah he would not be omnipotent according to your criterion. Even so, if he would not be limited in relation to what was _not_ logically impossible then it would be in relation to that that he would be omnipotent. But as far as an actual infinite weight value goes, that _is_ logically impossible. Only finite weight values are possible.

[@hereticapostate4302]

@@somethingyousaid5059 jeebus christ, you realize that you’re talking about a fictional being, right? Who cares what a magical superman could or couldn’t do? How in the world is that not childish?

[@somethingyousaid5059]

@@hereticapostate4302 I merely addressed the so called "Omnipotence Paradox". I didn't assert that God is existent. Wait until I assert that and _then_ be triggered.

[@hereticapostate4302]

@@somethingyousaid5059 point out in my comment exactly where I said you thought gods were real? Even tho I believe you do.

[@donaldgoodnight7853]

Good one. Christians didn't get the 411 on Mongols. Neither did the French. 😂🤣😂 not in the bible for sure. Don't kill the messanger? 😁 who knew?

[@ronholfly]

What did God do before he created reality?

[@jaymz1999]

God is eternal. He spent an eternity not creating reality. Since eternity is infinite, it is impossible for god to arrive at the point of creation.

[@martinsoukup562]

@@jaymz1999 That is not true. We do not know much about time but we can assume if there is a God then this God would not be chained by the time the same way we are.

[@jaymz1999]

@@martinsoukup562 Is there anything that we can not assume?

[@martinsoukup562]

@@jaymz1999 depends how far we go. Do we know logic exists? Do we know we exist? Laws of nature exist? Not really but it seems it would be pointless to assume that is true as everything might seem irrelevant to us.

[@jaymz1999]

@@martinsoukup562 Yeah, I understand that I put myself in the realm of philosophy and only have myself to blame for it. I tend to not do that, for the same reason I do not find it interesting to discuss the color of the skin of an orc. Yes, it always depends on how far we go, you are correct. But I’ve done that already. I prefer to discuss reality with people who agrees that an apple is an apple and that we can interact with it. I still think my comment holds some ground though.

[@bill01ng]

God is omniscience is nonsense and bible defeat this by itself. God test Abraham to sacrifice his son and he stop him. What did he say? Gen 22:12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”. If god is omniscience he would know Abraham fear god and do not require him to sacrifice his son to test him. Notice, it is explicitly said "NOW I KNOW" this means god do not know before, so this is god admission he is NOT omniscience, he does not know all things.

[@ajclements4627]

God was shown to be ignorant a lot in the Bible.

[@bill01ng]

@@ajclements4627 You are correct. Just look at Job 1:8-12, in verse 8: “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.” Then Satan rebuked god and challenge god to put hedge on Job. If god is omniscience, god can just said, I know Job would not betray me because I am omniscience. Satan can see god face to face, he should know god much better than anyone. Why he continue his challenge? Isn't this a direct prove god is NOT omniscience? Also, this "face saving" effort result in Job losing all his children, this are human life! Their lives and their servants' lives could be saved! They are innocent and their lives are gone just because god wants to prove he is right? This are things that Christians don't mentioned.

[@ringo666]

Actually, William, you skipped the best example of the biblical god's lack of omniscience -- the flood. The text says god was sorry he created man, and elected to do away witj man via a global flood. Now, since we know that didn't happen, we can be sure this whole argument is speculative. Good for us!

[@bill01ng]

@@ringo666 trust me, I tried this one. They argue that "god was sorry" is only a figure of speech. It is like father tell son not to take heroin but the son didn't listen and took it. So the father is sorry because he saw his son suffers. I tell you my personal experience: own brother is a pastor. Once my mom told him that she was scared when the plane she was on sudden dropped few hundred feet. You know what did he say? He said to his mom," you should not be scared because you would be much happier than now because you are in heaven." I really want to tell him, " why don't you shoot yourself and go directly to heaven immediately!" This kind of "Christian" really put the muscle they use sit but put them into their head for thinking.

[@bill01ng]

what I mean is: these so called Christians use their "buxx"/"bottxx" to think.

[@Simon-nv5zj]

Its funny, If I say that I talk to elvis Presley every day and he talks back, Im crazy. replace elvis with god, and Im enlightened

[@bleach8663]

Drink me

[@PronatorTendon]

We can't know everything about a grain of salt, much less the entire cosmos.

[@richiejohnson]

You have to define everything and cosmos. That is where your argument would prove invalid. We know a whole damn lot about salt, Bud

[@PronatorTendon]

@@richiejohnson We know about salt but we don't have comprehensive knowledge of every subatomic interaction of every molecule. How does what I've said render my statement invalid? Are you just being argumentative for the sake of it? What I've said is quite straightforward, unless English isn't your first language, in which case I'd understand your misconception

[@richiejohnson]

@@PronatorTendon You are using 2 words that are not clear in their definition. You are trying to sneak in your faith-beliefs with big fuzzy words. I do like to hear myself "talk"! I talk very well.., and I have lots to say.

[@ramptonarsecandle]

@@richiejohnson yes but you can't prove your god exists can you?

[@richiejohnson]

@@ramptonarsecandle I think you have misdirected. I am a proud blasphemer If I may renew my vows as such, I proclaim "The Holy Spirit is a lifeless puff of smoke" There, that should cover a couple of eternities

[@deeactive1329]

This is a weirdo argument. As stated how can a programmer contradict its own program. The thing is even aGod would have to work within the realm of it’s own program. God can do all things within the source code of the program, but cannot do things outside the realm of the program. If God changed the program to make something possible then it can’t be a miracle because it’s now possible do to the introduction of new source code. So God can’t do anything outside of the rules of physics that that God setup. The whole thing about a God existing outside of this reality means it doesn’t exist in this reality and could not have interaction with beings in this reality being outside of it. Then it’s said God existed before time is also a contradiction because as long as A God existed time would have had to existed as a being within that time. I don’t know it just gets frustrating not getting any real answers to a Gods existence and to just keep getting b.a apologetics is annoying and doesn’t advance our knowledge at all.

[@Mr.Goodkat]

He could just leave it open for "editing" at a future point and then the beings in the program when they see this "edit" are the ones proclaim it a "miracle" and if you don't believe in a God you'd still run into that time problem with whatever first cause you substitute one for, think about it.

[@deeactive1329]

@@Mr.Goodkat well until a first cause is necessary there’s no reason to believe it had 1. I get where people say something caused the bing bang. What if that cause has pre existed it our knowledge is limited on how the beginning to this current universe began. I’m not so sure this is the first universe, or if the Big Bang wasn’t a response to an initial cause as opposed to it being the first cause. Whatever the case a God isn’t necessary or a first cause. I don’t know if there is a beginning to force. It just seems to exist.

[@deeactive1329]

@@Mr.Goodkat I personally have a silly thought of a tri continuous multiverse. Which exist past present future on a looped simultaneous clock. My feeling is that the experiences coexist in a blended neural link. We progress and share memories, moments and achievements from each verse. The so called premonitions are future events of a timeline our future self already lived. Each timeline operates on a linked yet independent scale. So you can either follow the timeline which will lead to the premonition or you could go a different path and change the timeline for the current self. This would be in tact so that you can inform your alternate selves without truly disrupting other timelines.

[@Mr.Goodkat]

@@deeactive1329 "well until a first cause is necessary there’s no reason to believe it had 1", A first cause is necessary so according to you we need a reason to believe it had one now as for your "tri continuous multiverse" I'd need to re-read that a few times to try and get it, lol a lot to wrap my head around but yes there must be a first cause and this is inescapable.

[@deeactive1329]

@@Mr.Goodkat yes it must be one but I don’t think we will ever find it. That’s why I don’t see the need for it. Yes lol it takes some getting use to I was a writer in school and always had a weird mind.

[@asherchancey3615]

Bored