Bravo good sir. This is why threads like these and the ones to come are pointless. We both know what the answer is according to your argument Nitrous. Why can't god make a rock so big that even he can't lift it? Or how about this. Have you told your mom you're a homosexual yet? It's a loaded and an unfair question. One last question, can God sin?
I don't see how this relates to the argument at hand whatsoever. A persons sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to the existence of God or a god. All I see is a cleverly disguised "you're gay" comment. If a god exists, then he makes/made the rules. Why would he lose at his own game?
I want to know if he - The beginning of a series of questions asked by billions. A vast majority of people throughout the world want to know this & that & everything about god & his existence, but the fact remains that we live on our own, current, plane of existence. We don't get to override the planes very easily. It will be a long ways down the road before we can break out of our universe (Which, we are apparently coming close to finding the edge of the visible universe.), and when we can, I'm sure we'll just pop out of a little crystal ball attached to a ring on the finger of some alien. Maybe, just maybe, the universe is simply the cellular structure of an even higher being. We're all simply the molecular system of the being, digesting it's food, living in this tomb. The truth to the matter is-we have no idea what the **** we are talking about. Nobody on this planet has the answer to the mystery that we all desire so strongly. Oddly enough, I'm going to have to agree with Yavi here, and say that this is a poor topic to debate. I saw your point. Made perfect sense to me.
Can God make life? No. Life is nonexistent, your entire life is fabricated. Why do you need to know what God can and cannot do? Appreciate what's been done, and stop trollin' the universe.
If a god does exist then he must have created everything right? That would include the very basis of morals and rules themselves. So why would he make a rule that he would have to violate? Why would he knowingly allow himself to violate a rule he created? He wouldn't. A god cannot sin because he defined what constitutes a sin.
"debates" such as these are incredibly pointless and futile IMO... there are multiple types of people in the world that just can't see eye to eye on these kind of things 1. atheists who go out of the way to prove god is a lie 2. agnostics who just don't give a **** 3. uber religious people who will go out of their way to prove their view of god is the true view of god 4. uber uber religious people who will blow **** up to prove that their god is the real god 5. religious people who are lazy and just dont practice people are always at odds with each other so questions like these shouldnt even be asked because there will NEVER be an answer. we might as well argue about if there is a spoon or not
What I meant to say is this (it probably would have gone over with you a little better): "I'm saying 2+2=3 while you are saying 2+2=cat, I may not be right but you are not even on subject." I'm just trying to let you know that you weren't paying attention. No harm was intended. Now, those other posts were not directed at you, I was laughing at the content of those posts, not necessarily you. I know that you are smarter than 2+2 equaling cat, I was having a bit of fun with someone who wanted to have it. Once again, no harm intended. Your whole concept is god did not make X, therefore it is not his nature to make X, therefore he is still omnipotent. This is where my liar arguement comes in (not necessarily mine but the arguement I'm trying to figure out). It is not god's nature to lie, god can create a being capable of lying which is contrary to his nature. It is not god's nature to make a square circle, god can(?) create a being capable of producing a square circle. My answer is no. But it goes deeper than this. Existence is a trait given to that which exists. If we take the judeo-christian world view we find that god was the alpha, as in he was everything in existence at some point. So when we are talking about the nature of god, we are talking about the nature of existence, the nature of reality. The nature of reality is that square circles or 'A' being 'A' and not 'A' cannot exist. And now pick up at my quote: We're always debating reality. The reality of the economy is whats debated not our dreams about the economy (unless that dream involves a revalation that can be applied to reality). Reality = existence, god = exists (maybe), therefore god must have existed within reality or within existence (depending on which term you prefer). I'm not being biased I'm being honest. If god exists, then he is in existence, correct (simple verbiage)? To exist implies you are within existence or reality. Reality measures what's real. Is god real? He is within reality. Stop thinking of reality as the universe of anything beyond it. Reality and existence are omnipresent if there is something to be real or to exist. The universe follows logic. Does the universe use logic to dictate its actions? No, we use logic to describe its actions it doesn't need a prescription. It behaves the way it behaves. The universe informs logic. If anything laws of logic are not laws for the universe they are laws to help govern our thinking. Existence behaves consistently, it just does. This is prevalent throughout all ways of thinking. Certain preconditions are made for existence that just behave the way they do. As human beings we can understand this and we've created a language that acts as a representation of the universe. You've been doing this victory dance because I've admitted logic is man-made and you've given me the arguments that our minds are limited, why does god have to play by our rules, etc. This just shows a misunderstanding of my position. Logic in any worldview is subjective. The way existence behaves is not subjective, it behaves independent of us, thus we describe it as such. Existence must behave the way it behaves, there is no misbehaving. It must conform and likewise god must conform to existence. God necessarily is classed under existence. Should I go further or is this hitting the nail on the head or what? Not by my rules, the rules of the side you're advocating because remember, I don't believe in god. God is the alpha in Christianity. He has always been and always will. For existence to exist, something must exist. If god exists, existence exists. If he doesn't, existence still can so long as there is something to be existing but that's irrelevant. God's actions form his nature, eh? I was my nature to be my actions as well. I'm trying to draw a square circle but I cannot. Why? Because the nature existence prevents me from doing so. Our nature isn't determined by our actions, our actions are determined by our nature. In a colloquial sense you could advocate the former. In an objective way of thinking the latter must be true. It is not my nature to draw a square circle, therefore my actions cannot produce the product contrary to my nature which is governed by the nature of existence or reality. The point of this debate is for the Christian god, I haven't changed my target. I do it because it's fun and I like to understand the universe I live a little better. But I see you did something odd. You claimed I was being annoying when I never asked you to comment, never to view this thread, or even to visit this site. You barged into the conversation, claimed I was annoying, for the sake of doing it, and have promptly left. Why? If you don't like the idea of god being discussed then don't visit an open forum specifically dedicated to such a debate. Whether I'm right or wrong, pretentious or foolish, or just too damn sexy for my own good is irrelevant. You shouldn't care because you shouldn't be reading. Stop trying to limit my freedom of speech for the sake of your own desires. Got a huge ****ing erection right now. I stroke it so hard when I stump someone, you have no idea. Whether or not I can top the great thinkers is not my goal. My goal is to think like them, not better than them. Maybe someday I will but that day will never come with an idle mind.
This big 8==============D? Well you do not seem to let up on the people who make valid points and do not seem to want to try to come to an understanding and always try to prove them wrong and never admit you own misses.
Eh heh. Bigger my man. You're going to need some exponents in there. Isn't that the point of a debate? If I threw up my arms and just accepted their side it wouldn't be much, would it? If someone ever does post something I find truly impressive I will happily change my point of view, likewise if someone says something I don't have knowledge of I will make my best effort to understand it and try to get back to the person (I've shown the former but epiphanies are hard to come by). The only time I try to prove someone wrong is when I feel they are wrong. If I felt they were right I wouldn't attempt to show them false, but if one position conforms to reality while the other does not you would think one of us would eventually would be able to beat the person into submission. In the meantime, listen to some Liszt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqxZ3AYjuJo
You know, more and more I am just questioning what exactly makes this a debate. It just seems to be assertions being put forth. With no way of swaying either side, it just proves to further a repetitive strain of god cannot do this, but god chooses not to do this, but that does not apply to reality. The whole point of god is that he goes beyond reality, so unless you can prove their is actually a formal set of rules that the universe must follow, a god could possibly bend these rules to his/her/its whim. Btw, nice cartoon, I did enjoy it.
I'm going to go ahead and say, I have not been debating a judeo-christian god this whole time... I've been merely debating god... as a possibility, my personal interpretation of god is far different than the christian interpretation... Just to let you know, I mean, we could just kind of stop because, I mean, a lot of your argument does hinge on the christianity of god.... either way, I'm going to continue, if you want to not respond, that's fine... we'd probably keep going in circles anyway... See, one big conflict I have with this is that you assume god's nature is as the bible says it is... you referenced the alpha, you referenced him being omnibenevolent in nature... etcetera. However, just to let you know your argument still hinges on function following nature. I however, believe that nature follows function... and we'll go round and round on this because, really, they're just different ways of looking at the same thing. Gods nature is established by what he does, that's how we interpret him.. we can't know gods nature and thus rule out any possibility of him doing anything that he hasn't done before. Even for christianity, the bible isn't what creates god there isn't a "this is his nature" passage in the bible, rather that's a record of what he's done thus far, we interpret the nature from that. You've done one ending-of-evangelion style type of argument, you've used a whole lot of words but haven't made a very large point with them... If you noticed, I trimmed a bit of your argument out because it wasn't there to prove a lot. Yes, god is real, thus exists within reality, but did you have to use two whole paragraphs to say that? Anyway, as towards this point, ogic is man-made as we've agreed... you say that god must adhere to this man-made device... you don't give any reasons except that he must. I, however, have backed up my claim with a nifty little example and everything. saying irrelivant things isn't helping us come to an end any sooner. You're saying because you can't make a square circle, which is contrary to your nature, god must follow the same logic? See, there's the thing... he's god... he created this whole shebang... his nature, apparently is much more powerful than ours (dare I say omnipotent) to create the whole of existence... we don't know his nature, as of now the only measure of his nature is his actions... but just because he hasn't doesn't mean he can't... I'm going to go back to the murderer point... just because I haven't killed a man (making it not in my nature) doesn't mean I can't. Again, I'm not debating from the judeo-christian standpoint so your premises might not all be accurate towards me. 0_0 ORLY?
Say for a moment you believe god exists. To exist implies existence. God maintains the property of existence without which he does not exist. If god always existed then it follows existence should have always existed with him, correct? Don't think of existence as something that is made, rather as something that is inherent. God has always existed, cool. The properties god must have existed along with him. God is just, good, holy, etc. Those properties must have been with god from day one. In the same way existence has properties. Within reality (or existence) square circles are impossible. God exists, therefore he is within existence, he then must conform to existence. And that is where the whole premise of the debate stems. It's not like god made the rules, anymore than he made existence. We made the rules to reflect existence. Existence behaves the way it does, because it behaves the way it does. God conforms to existence because if he didn't he wouldn't exist. He would be outside of existence and the only way to do that is to make yourself not exist. Edit - Hari I just saw your post but I have to go to bed. I promise I will get back to you tomorrow.
well it depends what you define as existence... some people believe that god is more of a presence a sort of force in the universe opposed to a tangible being... it is hard to grasp that which doesn't have matter
Existence doesn't necessarily have to pertain to matter, energy, the physical, or the conceptual. Existence pertains to that which is. If god is, no matter what form, he exists. And Hari, I know I posted again but this was a quickie.
1. that is a "u" after the "r" in his name so it is haru, not hari 2. existence is theoretical... you are drifting into the realm of theory now. what is existence? are we really here? where are we? are we just in a moment in time or do we not exist at all? who are we? what are we? yea... another entire set of unanswerable and pointless questions
You assume that he exists the way we define existence, but what if he is not part of that. What if he is unbounded of what makes us conform to those rules because he did create our existence, and he has his own existence or perhaps he is above existence all together as we know it. Now obviously I have no way of proving this with rational thought, no matter how annoying that is to me, but again you are debating a force that does supposedly go beyond all that is known which again brings me to how fruitless this will be because every time someone can just say "God exists because I have faith." You will be unable to disprove it and they will be unable to prove it.
OMIGOD, why am I not asleep?!!?!?!? Well since you can speculate I will too. I speculate that existence won't allow the creation of a second existence as the behavior of existence is to assimilate any and all existences that could have possibly been contrived by a deity even though the idea of two existences is absurd in the highest degree. Done. Remember the whole thing about preconditions? It doesn't matter if we exist or not, the existence that may or may not exist that we are experiencing right now has certain behaviors which we describe through logic. There, I circumvented the arguement.
I see your nature of existence, and acknowledge that that is how i believe the universe to be, but supposing what I postulate is correct, well, draws this to a matter of definitions of some key aspects. If you would like to debate this point seriously any further, you should try to set some rules that the universe must abide by, so we do not meet these misunderstandings like this again. I'm certain you could see how rules may make there be a clear defining point where people will see, for a given number of circumstances, one side will at least gain some ground.