Why live?

[alive]

Why would god have us do this stupid step? Why even be born? Just wake up in heaven.. We make no sense. A true god that most are wanting that created everything in the universe would not need living specks of like on a grain of sand in the universe...Why even make anything outside of heaven... I don't think believers have put a real effort on if there realy was a god what the heck would even bother with us...Would you?

For a second take god out of existance...There are countless ways life could of happen...Now add god back in and you were god... I have a universe with maybe 100's of millions of planets...My only thing Im worried about is getting humans to heaven?

I hope Im still alive when everyone wakes up..

[The Tongue]

Why would god have us do this stupid step? Why even be born? Just wake up in heaven.. We make no sense. A true god that most are wanting that created everything in the universe would not need living specks of like on a grain of sand in the universe...Why even make anything outside of heaven... I don't think believers have put a real effort on if there realy was a god what the heck would even bother with us...Would you?

For a second take god out of existance...There are countless ways life could of happen...Now add god back in and you were god... I have a universe with maybe 100's of millions of planets...My only thing Im worried about is getting humans to heaven?

I hope Im still alive when everyone wakes up..

I just got back from a speaking tour. Life is fun overall. It's like living a novel with new chapters being written just about every day.

We are already IN eternity. Enjoy the ride in the corporeal jungle.

If we take your position, then no one should even have a desire to have a child. But, the desire to procreate is obvioulsy more then just spreading the selfish gene. Many humans have children for reasons of love. ALWAYS, knowing that the person that they are "creating" may and indeed WILL suffer somewhere along the life journey. But, on that journey is also offered joy that's unspeakable.

"Let us make man after our image. After our likeness," said God.

It is the antithesis of intellectualism to believe that there is no God,"

We mimick Him too often for that to be sensible.

Crikey Chum, Can the Copulating Couple Claim Credit for Creating a Child

[alive]

Why would god have us do this stupid step? Why even be born? Just wake up in heaven.. We make no sense. A true god that most are wanting that created everything in the universe would not need living specks of like on a grain of sand in the universe...Why even make anything outside of heaven... I don't think believers have put a real effort on if there realy was a god what the heck would even bother with us...Would you?

For a second take god out of existance...There are countless ways life could of happen...Now add god back in and you were god... I have a universe with maybe 100's of millions of planets...My only thing Im worried about is getting humans to heaven?

I hope Im still alive when everyone wakes up..

I just got back from a speaking tour. Life is fun overall. It's like living a novel with new chapters being written just about every day.

We are already IN eternity. Enjoy the ride in the corporeal jungle.

If we take your position, then no one should even have a desire to have a child. But, the desire to procreate is obvioulsy more then just spreading the selfish gene. Many humans have children for reasons of love. ALWAYS, knowing that the person that they are "creating" may and indeed WILL suffer somewhere along the life journey. But, on that journey is also offered joy that's unspeakable.

"Let us make man after our image. After our likeness," said God.

It is the antithesis of intellectualism to believe that there is no God,"

We mimick Him too often for that to be sensible.

("Let us make man after our image. After our likeness," said God.)

So someone said god said this and so someone wrote that this person said god said it and you believe that the guy that wrote this because he believed that the guy he herd it from that god said it and you call that intellectual?

[Goat]

Why would god have us do this stupid step? Why even be born? Just wake up in heaven.. We make no sense. A true god that most are wanting that created everything in the universe would not need living specks of like on a grain of sand in the universe...Why even make anything outside of heaven... I don't think believers have put a real effort on if there realy was a god what the heck would even bother with us...Would you?

For a second take god out of existance...There are countless ways life could of happen...Now add god back in and you were god... I have a universe with maybe 100's of millions of planets...My only thing Im worried about is getting humans to heaven?

I hope Im still alive when everyone wakes up..

I just got back from a speaking tour. Life is fun overall. It's like living a novel with new chapters being written just about every day.

We are already IN eternity. Enjoy the ride in the corporeal jungle.

If we take your position, then no one should even have a desire to have a child. But, the desire to procreate is obvioulsy more then just spreading the selfish gene. Many humans have children for reasons of love. ALWAYS, knowing that the person that they are "creating" may and indeed WILL suffer somewhere along the life journey. But, on that journey is also offered joy that's unspeakable.

"Let us make man after our image. After our likeness," said God.

It is the antithesis of intellectualism to believe that there is no God,"

We mimick Him too often for that to be sensible.

("Let us make man after our image. After our likeness," said God.)

So someone said god said this and so someone wrote that this person said god said it and you believe that the guy that wrote this because he believed that the guy he herd it from that god said it and you call that intellectual?

I am not sure if he originated the statement, but he certainly capitalized on it.

There are many people with sincere religious belief out there. Then there are those people willing to capitalize on that sincere belief to make money for themselves.

[Bust Nak]

When a word denotes, it simply means that thing itself. For instance, 'circle' denotes the round shape. 'Square' denotes a shape with 4 sides of equal length and every internal angle being 90º.

'Square circle' does not denote anything.

Surely 'Square circle' denote a round shape with 4 sides of equal length and every internal angle being 90º. What if one insist God can make squrare circles and they aren't logical contradiction? Do you see the parallels with the trinity here?

Likewise, when by omnipotence we mean "the power to do all things," the all doesn't include logical contradictions. This is because logical contradictions do not denote things. They are non-things, nothings. See how I might say "There is nothing God cannot do," which means the same as "God can do all things."

Why go out of your way to play word game when it clear omnipotent to you means the power to do any logically consistent thing, or there is nothing logically consistent God cannot do.

In the negative form, it is explicitly stated God cannot do nothing. If you think omnipotence requires being able to instantiate square circles, why don't you include nothing as something that God might instantiate?

Why wouldn't one include nothing as something that God might instantiate?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 39:

...
Likewise, when by omnipotence we mean "the power to do all things," the all doesn't include logical contradictions.

That word - all - I think it means something different than you think it means.

Does the set of all not include all?

...
See how I might say "There is nothing God cannot do," which means the same as "God can do all things." In the negative form, it is explicitly stated God cannot do nothing. If you think omnipotence requires being able to instantiate square circles, why don't you include nothing as something that God might instantiate?

'Cause I don't make claims to know the properties of a god I can't show exists.

"All". It either means all, or it means, "That stuff I want to include in it, but none of that stuff I don't, or that causes problems when I go to saying all".

A god that can do all things, must, by definition, be able to do all things. If it can't, those who propose it does do all things, have lost any semblance of rationality.

Is it rational to think a god can perform a contradiction? Perhaps not. But then, by definition, that god can't do all. That such a simple concept erodes the claims of the proponents of an omnipotent god suggests, if only to me, their concept of "all" is not based in reality, much like their concept of an "omnipotent god who just so happens to not be omnipotent".

[AquinasD]

Surely 'Square circle' denote a round shape with 4 sides of equal length and every internal angle being 90º.

There are certain facts which must obtain in order for a square or a circle to be obtained. We can state these facts as relating to the possibility of other shapes being obtained by a logical schema.

For instance, I could say:

1. If a shape is round in anyway, it cannot be a square
2. A circle is round

If we then wanted to introduce two further postulates that must hold in the case that we have a square circle, i.e.

3. This shape is a circle
4. This shape is a square

You can produce a logical contradiction.

5. This shape cannot be a square (1,3)
6. The shape is a square and it cannot be a square (4,5)

By this logical schema, we see that there can be no 'square circle.' It cannot denote anything, because it is logically impossible. One who thinks there can be such a thing understands neither what it is to be a square or a circle. We would say about such persons that they are conceptually confused.

What if one insist God can make squrare circles and they aren't logical contradiction?

They are conceptually confused.

Do you see the parallels with the trinity here?

I can see how some would do so in their confusion, but I understand there to be no parallel. There can be no equivocal parallels between God and other things.

Why go out of your way to play word game when it clear omnipotent to you means the power to do any logically consistent thing, or there is nothing logically consistent God cannot do.

I'm not playing word games. I am merely elaborating on a tautology. Like I said, if you took the set of all things, you would not find logical contradictions. Thus, "The power to do all things" and "The power to do all logically possible things" are tautologous. They mean the same thing. My only point was to present one as a conclusion from the other, so that certain individuals wouldn't think I was attaching a qualification ad hoc, since we know many atheists like a decent level of subtlety about these things. Of course, I'm certain that my effort is still in vain, but you can't say I didn't try to educate people in elementary logic.

Why wouldn't one include nothing as something that God might instantiate?

Because it's a complete negation of omnipotence.

"God can instantiate anything."

"God can instantiate nothing."

That's the problem with including nothing in the set of all things. Logically, when we use the word nothing, it entails a negation of the act. If I were to say "I am writing nothing" then we would understand it to be the case that I am not writing. To x nothing is to not-x. To instantiate nothing is to not instantiate.

[AquinasD]

'Cause I don't make claims to know the properties of a god I can't show exists.

Then why are you claiming that omnipotence must include the possibility of instantiating logical contradictions? To say such a thing, doesn't it imply that everything you say on the matter is moot?

A god that can do all things, must, by definition, be able to do all things. If it can't, those who propose it does do all things, have lost any semblance of rationality.

Why do you believe logical contradictions are things? I'm really interested in this, because I haven't encountered anyone who believes that square circles are possible.

Is it rational to think a god can perform a contradiction? Perhaps not. But then, by definition, that god can't do all. That such a simple concept erodes the claims of the proponents of an omnipotent god suggests, if only to me, their concept of "all" is not based in reality, much like their concept of an "omnipotent god who just so happens to not be omnipotent".

Well, as I said above to Bust Nak, "The power to do all things" and "The power to do all logically possible things" is tautologous. Hence, when I say "The power to do all things," it doesn't include the logically impossible; after all, were it to include the logically impossible, then they must be possible, which defeats the point of saying they are logically impossible. To include logical contradictions as something which God might instantiate is to say that the logically impossible is possible.

Are you committing to that? If you aren't, then what is your problem with omniscience as I've explained it?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 47:

'Cause I don't make claims to know the properties of a god I can't show exists.

Then why are you claiming that omnipotence must include the possibility of instantiating logical contradictions?

'Cause "omni" means all and "potence" means of it.

To say such a thing, doesn't it imply that everything you say on the matter is moot?

I contend it shows those who claim to know of an "omnipotent" god who just so happens to be incapable of doing the very things that'd make him omnipotent is the moot part of it.

Why do you believe logical contradictions are things? I'm really interested in this, because I haven't encountered anyone who believes that square circles are possible.

Words define things.

Please note, I've never said that square circles are possible. I have consistently maintained that an "omnipotent" god that can't do something is not an omnipotent god.

Well, as I said above to Bust Nak, "The power to do all things" and "The power to do all logically possible things" is tautologous. Hence, when I say "The power to do all things," it doesn't include the logically impossible...

Thus, the use of the notion of "omnipotence" is in error.

were it to include the logically impossible, then they must be possible, which defeats the point of saying they are logically impossible. To include logical contradictions as something which God might instantiate is to say that the logically impossible is possible.

It's your god, your claims. I'll continue to assert that something that is "omnipotent", who just so happens to not be able to do something, is, by definition, not "omnipotent".

Are you committing to that? If you aren't, then what is your problem with omniscience as I've explained it?

I've not spoken of omniscience, and I 'pologize if I've misconstrued your position. I've consistently held to / against the argument of "omnipotence" or "omnipotent".

That said, does this god of yours know that some of his folks are going around saying he's "omnipotent" - except for the stuff he can't do?

[AquinasD]

I contend it shows those who claim to know of an "omnipotent" god who just so happens to be incapable of doing the very things that'd make him omnipotent is the moot part of it.

It is your claim then that God is only God if He is logically absurd?

Let's just suppose God could do the logically impossible, shall we?

Whatever can be done is logically possible.

If God can do the logically impossible, it follows that the logically impossible is possible. But this completely destroys the point of saying that there is something logically impossible. By your reasoning, logically impossible = logically possible.

In other words, by your reasoning, there is no such thing as logic.

That is what is wrong with your definition of omnipotence and that it must include the ability to do the logically contradictory. The logically contradictory is, as I've already explained, nothing, and thus not a loss from our all.

Let me try putting this another way.

Suppose there were a list of everything. Your read over it, and you didn't find nothing listed. Does a list of everything include nothing? How could it? Were I to say "This list includes nothing," wouldn't that mean it couldn't be a list of everything? Clearly, therefore, lacking nothing is still to have everything.

Please note, I've never said that square circles are possible. I have consistently maintained that an "omnipotent" god that can't do something is not an omnipotent god.

Why do you believe that a 'square circle' is a something? As I (and the other theists, those who came up with the word omnipotence to describe something particular) reckon it, 'square circles' are not things. To ask "What is a square circle like" can only receive the answer "It isn't something at all!"

It's your god, your claims.

That's the thing, you keep coming up with this new definition of "omnipotence" that no one ever meant.

I'll continue to assert that something that is "omnipotent", who just so happens to not be able to do something, is, by definition, not "omnipotent".

That's correct, but your application is mistaken since you keep insisting on saying logical impossibilities are (some)things. You are persisting in treating nothing as though it were a particular sort of thing which one might do. It's a plain mistake of language or logic on your part. That is all.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 49:

I contend it shows those who claim to know of an "omnipotent" god who just so happens to be incapable of doing the very things that'd make him omnipotent is the moot part of it.

It is your claim then that God is only God if He is logically absurd?

It's my claim you're far too intelligent to rely on strawmen.

I responded to a claim that a god is "omnipotent", but somehow just can't do something.

Let's just suppose God could do the logically impossible, shall we?

Whatever can be done is logically possible.

I prefer not to debate in hypotheticals as they can be constructed to produce the results they're constructed to produce.

If...

If. Again, I don't debate on "if". I debate on sound reasoning and logical conclusions. The sound reasoning and logical conclusion of, "This god's all omnipotent and all, he just can't do this deal here" is that one is not arguing from sound reasoning and logical conclusions.

In other words, by your reasoning, there is no such thing as logic.

Nope. Logic dictates that one who can't do something is not omnipotent.

That is what is wrong with your definition of omnipotence and that it must include the ability to do the logically contradictory.

Do you deny that the root there, that whole "omni" thing, means all?

The logically contradictory is, as I've already explained, nothing, and thus not a loss from our all.

I take "our all" to mean "the part of 'all' that doesn't include that part of 'all' that upsets the whole notion of 'all'".

What part of all do you struggle to comprehend?

Suppose there were a list of everything. Your read over it, and you didn't find nothing listed. Does a list of everything include nothing? How could it? Were I to say "This list includes nothing," wouldn't that mean it couldn't be a list of everything? Clearly, therefore, lacking nothing is still to have everything.

I'm not here to play games of semantics. Either all means every danged bit of it, or it doesn't.

Why do you believe that a 'square circle' is a something?

'Cause you keep carryin' on about it.

As I (and the other theists, those who came up with the word omnipotence to describe something particular) reckon it, 'square circles' are not things. To ask "What is a square circle like" can only receive the answer "It isn't something at all!"

Or, it's a concept theists / Christians like to bandy about when they declare their god can do "all - 'cept for that little bit there".

That's the thing, you keep coming up with this new definition of "omnipotence" that no one ever meant.

Then if they didn't mean omnipotence, they hadn't oughta used it.

That's correct, but your application is mistaken since you keep insisting on saying logical impossibilities are (some)things. You are persisting in treating nothing as though it were a particular sort of thing which one might do. It's a plain mistake of language or logic on your part...

I'm not the one insisting a god is "omnipotent, 'cept for that stuff he can't do".

That is all.

Indeed, that is all. That is "all" it takes to show some theists'll abuse definitions to suit their aims, and get upset when ya call 'em on it.

What part of "all" do you most struggle with the comprehending?

(speling edit)